Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computing

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 2109.04270 v3 pith:ZYT5PD4E submitted 2021-09-09 cs.LG cs.AI

Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computing

classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords perspectiviststancedatadescribehumanoftenproposaltasks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Most Artificial Intelligence applications are based on supervised machine learning (ML), which ultimately grounds on manually annotated data. The annotation process is often performed in terms of a majority vote and this has been proved to be often problematic, as highlighted by recent studies on the evaluation of ML models. In this article we describe and advocate for a different paradigm, which we call data perspectivism, which moves away from traditional gold standard datasets, towards the adoption of methods that integrate the opinions and perspectives of the human subjects involved in the knowledge representation step of ML processes. Drawing on previous works which inspired our proposal we describe the potential of our proposal for not only the more subjective tasks (e.g. those related to human language) but also to tasks commonly understood as objective (e.g. medical decision making), and present the main advantages of adopting a perspectivist stance in ML, as well as possible disadvantages, and various ways in which such a stance can be implemented in practice. Finally, we share a set of recommendations and outline a research agenda to advance the perspectivist stance in ML.

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. Structured Disagreement in Health-Literacy Annotation: Epistemic Stability, Conceptual Difficulty, and Agreement-Stratified Inference

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Disagreement in health-literacy annotations is driven by conceptual task difficulty rather than annotator differences, with social effects varying or reversing by agreement level, making perspectivist modeling necessary.