Towards Good Practices for Efficiently Annotating Large-Scale Image Classification Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data is the engine of modern computer vision, which necessitates collecting large-scale datasets. This is expensive, and guaranteeing the quality of the labels is a major challenge. In this paper, we investigate efficient annotation strategies for collecting multi-class classification labels for a large collection of images. While methods that exploit learnt models for labeling exist, a surprisingly prevalent approach is to query humans for a fixed number of labels per datum and aggregate them, which is expensive. Building on prior work on online joint probabilistic modeling of human annotations and machine-generated beliefs, we propose modifications and best practices aimed at minimizing human labeling effort. Specifically, we make use of advances in self-supervised learning, view annotation as a semi-supervised learning problem, identify and mitigate pitfalls and ablate several key design choices to propose effective guidelines for labeling. Our analysis is done in a more realistic simulation that involves querying human labelers, which uncovers issues with evaluation using existing worker simulation methods. Simulated experiments on a 125k image subset of the ImageNet100 show that it can be annotated to 80% top-1 accuracy with 0.35 annotations per image on average, a 2.7x and 6.7x improvement over prior work and manual annotation, respectively. Project page: https://fidler-lab.github.io/efficient-annotation-cookbook
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".