Performance of Human Annotators in Object Detection and Segmentation of Remotely Sensed Data
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the performance of human annotators in object detection and segmentation tasks using remote sensing data.
- The study analyzed the precision, recall, and error types of expert annotators compared to ground truth annotations.
- The findings provide insights into the capabilities and limitations of human annotators for these computer vision tasks.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers wanted to understand how well human experts can identify and outline objects in aerial or satellite imagery, a task known as object detection and segmentation. They recruited a group of experienced annotators and had them label various objects like buildings, roads, and vegetation in a set of remote sensing images.
The researchers then compared the annotations made by the human experts to the "ground truth" labels, which were considered the most accurate representations of the objects in the images. This allowed them to calculate the precision (how many of the annotator's labels were correct) and recall (how many of the true objects were detected) of the human annotators.
Additionally, the researchers looked at the different types of errors the annotators made, such as incorrectly identifying an object, missing an object entirely, or mislabeling the boundaries of an object. This provided insights into the specific challenges human annotators face when working with remote sensing data.
The findings from this study can help researchers and organizations better understand the strengths and limitations of using human experts for computer vision tasks like object detection and segmentation. This knowledge can inform the design of more effective annotation processes, as well as the development of automated computer vision systems that can complement or replace manual annotation.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a study to evaluate the performance of human annotators on object detection and segmentation tasks using remote sensing data. They recruited 11 expert annotators and had them label various objects (e.g., buildings, roads, vegetation) in a set of aerial and satellite images.
The annotators' labels were compared to ground truth annotations, which were considered the most accurate representations of the objects in the images. This allowed the researchers to calculate the precision and recall of the human annotations. Precision measures how many of the annotator's labels were correct, while recall measures how many of the true objects were detected.
In addition to analyzing precision and recall, the researchers also examined the types of errors made by the annotators. They categorized the errors into four main types: [1] false positives (annotating an object that doesn't exist), [2] false negatives (missing an existing object), [3] intersection over union (IoU) errors (mislabeling the boundaries of an object), and [4] classification errors (incorrectly identifying the type of object).
The results showed that the human annotators achieved high precision (around 80%) but lower recall (around 60%), indicating that they were good at correctly identifying objects but tended to miss some existing objects. The most common errors were false negatives and IoU errors, suggesting that the annotators struggled with detecting smaller objects and accurately delineating object boundaries.
These findings provide valuable insights into the capabilities and limitations of human annotators for computer vision tasks in the context of remote sensing data. The results can inform the design of more effective annotation processes, as well as the development of automated computer vision systems that can complement or replace manual annotation.
Critical Analysis
The study provides a comprehensive evaluation of human annotator performance in object detection and segmentation tasks using remote sensing data. The researchers employed a rigorous methodology, including the use of ground truth annotations and a detailed error analysis, to gain a nuanced understanding of the annotators' strengths and weaknesses.
One potential limitation of the study is the relatively small sample size of 11 expert annotators. While the researchers note that this is a common number for this type of study, a larger and more diverse set of annotators could have provided more generalizable insights. Additionally, the study only examined a specific set of remote sensing images, and the performance of human annotators may vary depending on the complexity and characteristics of the dataset.
Another area for further research could be the impact of factors like annotator training, experience, and cognitive biases on their performance. Understanding how these individual differences influence annotation quality could help organizations design more effective training programs and annotation workflows.
Despite these potential limitations, the study's findings have important implications for the development of computer vision systems and the use of human annotation in remote sensing applications. The insights into the types of errors made by human annotators can inform the design of more robust and accurate automated object detection and segmentation algorithms, as well as the development of tools and processes to better support and augment human annotation efforts.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the performance of human annotators in object detection and segmentation tasks using remote sensing data. The researchers found that while the annotators achieved high precision, they struggled with recall, particularly when it came to smaller objects and accurately delineating object boundaries.
The detailed error analysis revealed the specific challenges human annotators face in these computer vision tasks, which can inform the design of more effective annotation processes and the development of automated systems that can complement or replace manual annotation. These findings have important implications for the remote sensing and computer vision communities, as they work to leverage both human and machine capabilities to extract meaningful information from complex datasets.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
New!Performance of Human Annotators in Object Detection and Segmentation of Remotely Sensed Data
Roni Blushtein-Livnon, Tal Svoray, Michael Dorman
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 0.15textbf{$m$}, 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.
Read more9/17/2024
📊
0
No Need to Sacrifice Data Quality for Quantity: Crowd-Informed Machine Annotation for Cost-Effective Understanding of Visual Data
Christopher Klugmann, Rafid Mahmood, Guruprasad Hegde, Amit Kale, Daniel Kondermann
Labeling visual data is expensive and time-consuming. Crowdsourcing systems promise to enable highly parallelizable annotations through the participation of monetarily or otherwise motivated workers, but even this approach has its limits. The solution: replace manual work with machine work. But how reliable are machine annotators? Sacrificing data quality for high throughput cannot be acceptable, especially in safety-critical applications such as autonomous driving. In this paper, we present a framework that enables quality checking of visual data at large scales without sacrificing the reliability of the results. We ask annotators simple questions with discrete answers, which can be highly automated using a convolutional neural network trained to predict crowd responses. Unlike the methods of previous work, which aim to directly predict soft labels to address human uncertainty, we use per-task posterior distributions over soft labels as our training objective, leveraging a Dirichlet prior for analytical accessibility. We demonstrate our approach on two challenging real-world automotive datasets, showing that our model can fully automate a significant portion of tasks, saving costs in the high double-digit percentage range. Our model reliably predicts human uncertainty, allowing for more accurate inspection and filtering of difficult examples. Additionally, we show that the posterior distributions over soft labels predicted by our model can be used as priors in further inference processes, reducing the need for numerous human labelers to approximate true soft labels accurately. This results in further cost reductions and more efficient use of human resources in the annotation process.
Read more9/4/2024
🖼️
0
Human-annotated label noise and their impact on ConvNets for remote sensing image scene classification
Longkang Peng, Tao Wei, Xuehong Chen, Xiaobei Chen, Rui Sun, Luoma Wan, Jin Chen, Xiaolin Zhu
Convolutional neural networks (ConvNets) have been successfully applied to satellite image scene classification. Human-labeled training datasets are essential for ConvNets to perform accurate classification. Errors in human-annotated training datasets are unavoidable due to the complexity of satellite images. However, the distribution of real-world human-annotated label noises on remote sensing images and their impact on ConvNets have not been investigated. To fill this research gap, this study, for the first time, collected real-world labels from 32 participants and explored how their annotated label noise affect three representative ConvNets (VGG16, GoogleNet, and ResNet-50) for remote sensing image scene classification. We found that: (1) human-annotated label noise exhibits significant class and instance dependence; (2) an additional 1% of human-annotated label noise in training data leads to 0.5% reduction in the overall accuracy of ConvNets classification; (3) the error pattern of ConvNet predictions was strongly correlated with that of participant's labels. To uncover the mechanism underlying the impact of human labeling errors on ConvNets, we further compared it with three types of simulated label noise: uniform noise, class-dependent noise and instance-dependent noise. Our results show that the impact of human-annotated label noise on ConvNets significantly differs from all three types of simulated label noise, while both class dependence and instance dependence contribute to the impact of human-annotated label noise on ConvNets. These observations necessitate a reevaluation of the handling of noisy labels, and we anticipate that our real-world label noise dataset would facilitate the future development and assessment of label-noise learning algorithms.
Read more5/1/2024
0
Towards Geographic Inclusion in the Evaluation of Text-to-Image Models
Melissa Hall, Samuel J. Bell, Candace Ross, Adina Williams, Michal Drozdzal, Adriana Romero Soriano
Rapid progress in text-to-image generative models coupled with their deployment for visual content creation has magnified the importance of thoroughly evaluating their performance and identifying potential biases. In pursuit of models that generate images that are realistic, diverse, visually appealing, and consistent with the given prompt, researchers and practitioners often turn to automated metrics to facilitate scalable and cost-effective performance profiling. However, commonly-used metrics often fail to account for the full diversity of human preference; often even in-depth human evaluations face challenges with subjectivity, especially as interpretations of evaluation criteria vary across regions and cultures. In this work, we conduct a large, cross-cultural study to study how much annotators in Africa, Europe, and Southeast Asia vary in their perception of geographic representation, visual appeal, and consistency in real and generated images from state-of-the art public APIs. We collect over 65,000 image annotations and 20 survey responses. We contrast human annotations with common automated metrics, finding that human preferences vary notably across geographic location and that current metrics do not fully account for this diversity. For example, annotators in different locations often disagree on whether exaggerated, stereotypical depictions of a region are considered geographically representative. In addition, the utility of automatic evaluations is dependent on assumptions about their set-up, such as the alignment of feature extractors with human perception of object similarity or the definition of appeal captured in reference datasets used to ground evaluations. We recommend steps for improved automatic and human evaluations.
Read more5/8/2024