mlsanityData to 13 Oct 2026

Quality Assured: Rethinking Annotation Strategies in Imaging AI

arXiv 2407.17596 ↗First posted 24 Jul 2024cs.CV cs.AI cs.LGcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper does not describe a novel method. Instead, it studies an essential foundation for reliable benchmarking and ultimately real-world application of AI-based image analysis: generating high-quality reference annotations. Previous research has focused on crowdsourcing as a means of outsourcing annotations. However, little attention has so far been given to annotation companies, specifically regarding their internal quality assurance (QA) processes. Therefore, our aim is to evaluate the influence of QA employed by annotation companies on annotation quality and devise methodologies for maximizing data annotation efficacy. Based on a total of 57,648 instance segmented images obtained from a total of 924 annotators and 34 QA workers from four annotation companies and Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), we derived the following insights: (1) Annotation companies perform better both in terms of quantity and quality compared to the widely used platform MTurk. (2) Annotation companies' internal QA only provides marginal improvements, if any. However, improving labeling instructions instead of investing in QA can substantially boost annotation performance. (3) The benefit of internal QA depends on specific image characteristics. Our work could enable researchers to derive substantially more value from a fixed annotation budget and change the way annotation companies conduct internal QA.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2024.

Builds on

18 of 49 references.

References · 18

  1. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,072
  2. 2019Benchmarking Robustness in Object Detection: Autonomous Driving when Winter is Comingcited by 332
  3. 2022Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validationcited by 192
  4. 2023Platypus: Quick, Cheap, and Powerful Refinement of LLMscited by 150
  5. 2023Artificial Artificial Artificial Intelligence: Crowd Workers Widely Use Large Language Models for Text Production Taskscited by 103
  6. 2023Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validationcited by 58
  7. 2020Heidelberg Colorectal Data Set for Surgical Data Science in the Sensor Operating Roomcited by 47
  8. 2022ImageNet-X: Understanding Model Mistakes with Factor of Variation Annotationscited by 44
  9. 2019A Survey of Crowdsourcing in Medical Image Analysiscited by 20
  10. 2022Labeling instructions matter in biomedical image analysiscited by 20
  11. 2020Difficulty-aware Glaucoma Classification with Multi-Rater Consensus Modelingcited by 17
  12. 2022The Data-Production Dispositifcited by 16
6 more
  1. 2017Early Experiences with Crowdsourcing Airway Annotations in Chest CTcited by 6
  2. 2021The Challenge of Variable Effort Crowdsourcing and How Visible Gold Can Helpcited by 6
  3. 2021How can we learn (more) from challenges? A statistical approach to driving future algorithm developmentcited by 5
  4. 2023Neglected Free Lunch -- Learning Image Classifiers Using Annotation Byproductscited by 4
  5. 2017Prototype Tasks: Improving Crowdsourcing Results through Rapid, Iterative Task Designcited by 1
  6. 2023Gamified Crowdsourcing as a Novel Approach to Lung Ultrasound Dataset Labelingcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 13 Oct)

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

6 papers.