REVIEW 2 cited by
Ambiguous Annotations: When is a Pedestrian not a Pedestrian?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Datasets labelled by human annotators are widely used in the training and testing of machine learning models. In recent years, researchers are increasingly paying attention to label quality. However, it is not always possible to objectively determine whether an assigned label is correct or not. The present work investigates this ambiguity in the annotation of autonomous driving datasets as an important dimension of data quality. Our experiments show that excluding highly ambiguous data from the training improves model performance of a state-of-the-art pedestrian detector in terms of LAMR, precision and F1 score, thereby saving training time and annotation costs. Furthermore, we demonstrate that, in order to safely remove ambiguous instances and ensure the retained representativeness of the training data, an understanding of the properties of the dataset and class under investigation is crucial.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Data Annotation as Measurement
Data annotation quality should be assessed with reliability and validity concepts from measurement theory, and annotation problems should be diagnosed by their source (error, ambiguity, impossibility, subjectivity, id...
-
Understanding Model Calibration -- A gentle introduction and visual exploration of calibration and the expected calibration error (ECE)
An illustrated introduction to calibration definitions and the expected calibration error, together with a review of its drawbacks and alternative measures.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.