Assessing Data Quality of Annotations with Krippendorff Alpha For Applications in Computer Vision

TL;DR

This paper investigates how annotation quality affects deep learning performance in computer vision, proposing a methodology to monitor annotation consistency and its impact on algorithm accuracy.

Contribution

It introduces a methodology for monitoring annotation quality during image labeling and demonstrates its importance for reliable AI system evaluation.

Findings

Annotation discrepancies significantly impact algorithm precision

Monitoring annotation quality improves trustworthiness of AI systems

Ground truth selection influences perceived algorithm performance

Abstract

Current supervised deep learning frameworks rely on annotated data for modeling the underlying data distribution of a given task. In particular for computer vision algorithms powered by deep learning, the quality of annotated data is the most critical factor in achieving the desired algorithm performance. Data annotation is, typically, a manual process where the annotator follows guidelines and operates in a best-guess manner. Labeling criteria among annotators can show discrepancies in labeling results. This may impact the algorithm inference performance. Given the popularity and widespread use of deep learning among computer vision, more and more custom datasets are needed to train neural networks to tackle different kinds of tasks. Unfortunately, there is no full understanding of the factors that affect annotated data quality, and how it translates into algorithm performance. In this paper we studied this problem for object detection and recognition.We conducted several data annotation experiments to measure inter annotator agreement and consistency, as well as how the selection of ground truth impacts the perceived algorithm performance.We propose a methodology to monitor the quality of annotations during the labeling of images and how it can be used to measure performance. We also show that neglecting to monitor the annotation process can result in significant loss in algorithm precision. Through these experiments, we observe that knowledge of the labeling process, training data, and ground truth data used for algorithm evaluation are fundamental components to accurately assess trustworthiness of an AI system.