Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Benchmarking a Benchmark: How Reliable is MS-COCO?

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 2311.02709 v1 pith:L7XJVXTX submitted 2023-11-05 cs.CV

Benchmarking a Benchmark: How Reliable is MS-COCO?

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

Benchmark datasets are used to profile and compare algorithms across a variety of tasks, ranging from image classification to segmentation, and also play a large role in image pretraining algorithms. Emphasis is placed on results with little regard to the actual content within the dataset. It is important to question what kind of information is being learned from these datasets and what are the nuances and biases within them. In the following work, Sama-COCO, a re-annotation of MS-COCO, is used to discover potential biases by leveraging a shape analysis pipeline. A model is trained and evaluated on both datasets to examine the impact of different annotation conditions. Results demonstrate that annotation styles are important and that annotation pipelines should closely consider the task of interest. The dataset is made publicly available at https://www.sama.com/sama-coco-dataset/ .

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. Differences in Detection: Explainability Where it Matters

    cs.CV 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    DnD uses set operations on matched ground-truth detections to compare two object detectors more directly than separate mAP or TIDE scores.