mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Performance of Human Annotators in Object Detection and Segmentation of Remotely Sensed Data

arXiv 2409.10272 ↗First posted 16 Sep 2024cs.CVcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This study introduces a laboratory experiment designed to assess the influence of annotation strategies, levels of imbalanced data, and prior experience, on the performance of human annotators. The experiment focuses on labeling aerial imagery, using ArcGIS Pro tools, to detect and segment small-scale photovoltaic solar panels, selected as a case study for rectangular objects. The experiment is conducted using images with a pixel size of 0.15m, involving both expert and non-expert participants, across different setup strategies and target-background ratio datasets. Our findings indicate that human annotators generally perform more effectively in object detection than in segmentation tasks. A marked tendency to commit more Type II errors (False Negatives, i.e., undetected objects) than Type I errors (False Positives, i.e. falsely detecting objects that do not exist) was observed across all experimental setups and conditions, suggesting a consistent bias in detection and segmentation processes. Performance was better in tasks with higher target-background ratios (i.e., more objects per unit area). Prior experience did not significantly impact performance and may, in some cases, even lead to overestimation in segmentation. These results provide evidence that human annotators are relatively cautious and tend to identify objects only when they are confident about them, prioritizing underestimation over overestimation. Annotators' performance is also influenced by object scarcity, showing a decline in areas with extremely imbalanced datasets and a low ratio of target-to-background. These findings may enhance annotation strategies for remote sensing research while efficient human annotators are crucial in an era characterized by growing demands for high-quality training data to improve segmentation and detection models.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 79 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2024.

Builds on

13 of 79 references.

References · 13

  1. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,608
  2. 2023Segment Anythingcited by 8,234
  3. 2017Revisiting Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data in Deep Learning Eracited by 919
  4. 2017A systematic study of the class imbalance problem in convolutional neural networkscited by 513
  5. 2021Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 395
  6. 2021Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotationscited by 314
  7. 2019Large-scale interactive object segmentation with human annotatorscited by 110
  8. 2021Semantic Segmentation of Remote Sensing Images with Sparse Annotationscited by 30
  9. 2024Change Detection Between Optical Remote Sensing Imagery and Map Data via Segment Anything Model (SAM)cited by 12
  10. 2020Semi-Automatic Data Annotation guided by Feature Space Projectioncited by 11
  11. 2024Prompt-Based Segmentation at Multiple Resolutions and Lighting Conditions using Segment Anything Model 2cited by 8
  12. 2019A Soft STAPLE Algorithm Combined with Anatomical Knowledgecited by 7
1 more
  1. 2023When the Ground Truth is not True: Modelling Human Biases in Temporal Annotationscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.