mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Cooperative learning of Pl@ntNet's Artificial Intelligence algorithm: how does it work and how can we improve it?

arXiv 2406.03356 ↗First posted 5 Jun 2024cs.LG stat.APcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deep learning models for plant species identification rely on large annotated datasets. The PlantNet system enables global data collection by allowing users to upload and annotate plant observations, leading to noisy labels due to diverse user skills. Achieving consensus is crucial for training, but the vast scale of collected data makes traditional label aggregation strategies challenging. Existing methods either retain all observations, resulting in noisy training data or selectively keep those with sufficient votes, discarding valuable information. Additionally, as many species are rarely observed, user expertise can not be evaluated as an inter-user agreement: otherwise, botanical experts would have a lower weight in the AI training step than the average user. Our proposed label aggregation strategy aims to cooperatively train plant identification AI models. This strategy estimates user expertise as a trust score per user based on their ability to identify plant species from crowdsourced data. The trust score is recursively estimated from correctly identified species given the current estimated labels. This interpretable score exploits botanical experts' knowledge and the heterogeneity of users. Subsequently, our strategy removes unreliable observations but retains those with limited trusted annotations, unlike other approaches. We evaluate PlantNet's strategy on a released large subset of the PlantNet database focused on European flora, comprising over 6M observations and 800K users. We demonstrate that estimating users' skills based on the diversity of their expertise enhances labeling performance. Our findings emphasize the synergy of human annotation and data filtering in improving AI performance for a refined dataset. We explore incorporating AI-based votes alongside human input. This can further enhance human-AI interactions to detect unreliable observations.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jun 2024.

Builds on

17 of 42 references.

References · 17

  1. 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,764
  2. 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,451
  3. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  4. 2021BEiT: BERT Pre-Training of Image Transformerscited by 2,360
  5. 2023The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forgetcited by 343
  6. 2024Is Model Collapse Inevitable? Breaking the Curse of Recursion by Accumulating Real and Synthetic Datacited by 143
  7. 2017Deep learning from crowdscited by 105
  8. 2022Image Data Augmentation for Deep Learning: A Surveycited by 96
  9. 2023Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback: Learning Dynamic Choices via Pessimismcited by 69
  10. 2022On Uncertainty, Tempering, and Data Augmentation in Bayesian Classificationcited by 46
  11. 2020Learning from Crowds by Modeling Common Confusionscited by 32
  12. 2021Perspectives on individual animal identification from biology and computer visioncited by 31
5 more
  1. 2020Adversarial Crowdsourcing Through Robust Rank-One Matrix Completioncited by 21
  2. 2023Two Sides of Miscalibration: Identifying Over and Under-Confidence Prediction for Network Calibrationcited by 14
  3. 2018Fast Dawid-Skene: A Fast Vote Aggregation Scheme for Sentiment Classificationcited by 12
  4. 2023Towards Understanding the Mechanism of Contrastive Learning via Similarity Structure: A Theoretical Analysiscited by 6
  5. 2022Identify ambiguous tasks combining crowdsourced labels by weighting Areas Under the Margincited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

4 papers.