Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

"Is a picture of a bird a bird": Policy recommendations for dealing with ambiguity in machine vision models

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

arxiv 2306.15777 v1 pith:WG7ADTJM submitted 2023-06-27 cs.CY cs.CVcs.HC

"Is a picture of a bird a bird": Policy recommendations for dealing with ambiguity in machine vision models

classification cs.CY cs.CVcs.HC
keywords ambiguitymachinetaskbirdhumanimagesjudgmentslabel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Many questions that we ask about the world do not have a single clear answer, yet typical human annotation set-ups in machine learning assume there must be a single ground truth label for all examples in every task. The divergence between reality and practice is stark, especially in cases with inherent ambiguity and where the range of different subjective judgments is wide. Here, we examine the implications of subjective human judgments in the behavioral task of labeling images used to train machine vision models. We identify three primary sources of ambiguity arising from (i) depictions of labels in the images, (ii) raters' backgrounds, and (iii) the task definition. On the basis of the empirical results, we suggest best practices for handling label ambiguity in machine learning datasets.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Ground Truth to Measurement: A Statistical Framework for Human Labeling

    stat.ME 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A statistical framework decomposes human annotation outcomes into four interpretable variation sources and extends classical measurement-error models to handle both shared and individualized notions of truth.