Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computing
Open accessAbstract
Most current Artificial Intelligence applications are based on supervised Machine Learning (ML), which ultimately grounds on data annotated by small teams of experts or large ensemble of volunteers. The annotation process is often performed in terms of a majority vote, however this has been proved to be often problematic by recent evaluation studies. In this article, we describe and advocate for a different paradigm, which we call perspectivism: this counters the removal of disagreement and, consequently, the assumption of correctness of traditionally aggregated gold-standard datasets, and proposes the adoption of methods that preserve divergence of opinions and integrate multiple perspectives in the ground truthing process of ML development. Drawing on previous works which inspired it, mainly from the crowdsourcing and multi-rater labeling settings, we survey the state-of-the-art and describe the potential of our proposal for not only the more subjective tasks (e.g. those related to human language) but also those tasks commonly understood as objective (e.g. medical decision making). We present the main benefits of adopting a perspectivist stance in ML, as well as possible disadvantages, and various ways in which such a stance can be implemented in practice. Finally, we share a set of recommendations and outline a research agenda to advance the perspectivist stance in ML.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The assumption that ground-truth labels exist for unobserved attributes is controversial in many contexts.
“While standard in machine learning theory, the assumption that such ground-truth labels exist for unobserved attributes is controversial in many contexts(Cabitza, Campagner, and Basile 2023;Kang 2023).”
From Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability (2026) · cites this paper as Cabitza, Campagner, and Basile 2023
Section 5 challenges the idea that every classification has a single definitive label, citing the ambiguity of some phenomena. The discussion of evaluation also notes that a uniquely defined ground truth may be absent in subjective or ambiguous settings. These passages support the general controversy over ground-truth labels, but do not specifically address labels for unobserved attributes. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSubpopulation modeling is a promising direction for improving the representation and evaluation for the diverse stakeholders of NLP models.
“However, our results show subpopulation modeling is a promising direction for improving the representation and evaluation for the diverse stakeholders of NLP models (Cabitza et al., 2023).”
From NUTMEG: Separating Signal From Noise in Annotator Disagreement (2025) · cites this paper as Cabitza et al., 2023
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733 · see citing works
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., & Crawford, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.09010 · Cited by 2,474
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., III, H. D., & Crawford, K. (2021) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3458723 · Cited by 2,469 · see citing works
Bender, E. M., & Friedman, B. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00041 · Cited by 854 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Other relevant information such as those indicated in the previously mentioned Data Statements (Bender and Friedman 2018) or Datasheets for Datasets (Gebru et al. 2021), and regarding for example the data collection and sharing details or the intended uses for the collected data, should also be reported; • Collect add…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialData and its (dis)contents: A survey of dataset development and use in machine learning research
Paullada, A., Raji, I. D., Bender, E. M., Denton, E., & Hanna, A. (2021) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100336 · Cited by 548 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As discussed in a recent survey (Paullada et al. 2021), the “data” aspect, and the previously described associated issues, has always been a critical aspect of the ML development but it remains overlooked, both extensively mishandled in practice and ignored in theory.”
BackgroundOffensive, aggressive, and hate speech analysis: From data-centric to human-centered approach
Kocoń, J., Figas, A., Gruza, M., Puchalska, D., Kajdanowicz, T., & Kazienko, P. (2021) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102643 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
The Disagreement Deconvolution: Bringing Machine Learning Performance Metrics In Line With Reality
Gordon, M. L., Zhou, K., Patel, K., Hashimoto, T., & Bernstein, M. S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445423 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
A Checklist to Combat Cognitive Biases in Crowdsourcing
Draws, T., Rieger, A., Inel, O., Gadiraju, U., & Tintarev, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v9i1.18939 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 44
- Akhtar, S., Basile, V., Patti, V.: A new measure of polarization in the annotation of hate speech. In: Alviano, M., Greco, G., Scarcello, F. (eds.) AI*IA 2019 -Advances in Artificial Intelligence. pp. 588-603. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)
- Akhtar, S., Basile, V., Patti, V.: Modeling annotator perspective and polarized opin- ions to improve hate speech detection. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing. vol. 8, pp. 151-154 (2020)
- Aroyo, L., Welty, C.: Truth is a lie: Crowd truth and the seven myths of human annotation. AI Magazine 36(1), 15-24 (2015)
- Artstein, R., Poesio, M.: Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Com- putational Linguistics 34(4), 555-596 (2008)
- Barnard, M.E., Pyden, A., Rice, M.S., Linares, M., Tworoger, S.S., Howitt, B.E., Meserve, E.E., Hecht, J.L.: Inter-pathologist and pathology report agreement for ovarian tumor characteristics in the nurses' health studies. Gynecologic oncology 150(3), 521-526 (2018)
- Basile, V.: It's the end of the gold standard as we know it. leveraging non-aggregated data for better evaluation and explanation of subjective tasks. In: Baldoni, M., Bandini, S. (eds.) AIxIA 2020: Advances in Artificial Intelligence. XIXth Interna- tional Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence, Virtual Event, November 24-27, 2020, Revised and Selected papers, vol. 12414. Springer Nature Switzerland AG (2021)
- Bechmann, A., Bowker, G.C.: Unsupervised by any other name: Hidden layers of knowledge production in artificial intelligence on social media. Big Data & Society 6(1), 2053951718819569 (2019)
- Beyer, L., Hénaff, O.J., Kolesnikov, A., Zhai, X., Oord, A.v.d.: Are we done with imagenet? arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07159 (2020) · arXiv
- Brandt, F., Conitzer, V., Endriss, U., Lang, J., Procaccia, A.D.: Handbook of com- putational social choice. Cambridge University Press (2016)
- Cabitza, F., Campagner, A.: The need to separate the wheat from the chaff in medical informatics. International Journal of Medical Informatics 152 (2021)
- Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., Sconfienza, L.M.: As if sand were stone. new concepts and metrics to probe the ground on which to build trustable ai. BMC Medical Infor- matics and Decision Making 20(1), 1-21 (2020)
- Cabitza, F., Locoro, A., Alderighi, C., Rasoini, R., Compagnone, D., Berjano, P.: The elephant in the record: on the multiplicity of data recording work. Health informatics journal 25(3), 475-490 (2019)
- Chang, J.C., Amershi, S., Kamar, E.: Revolt: Collaborative crowdsourcing for la- beling machine learning datasets. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 2334-2346 (2017)
- Chen, X., Bennett, P.N., Collins-Thompson, K., Horvitz, E.: Pairwise ranking ag- gregation in a crowdsourced setting. In: Proceedings of the sixth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. pp. 193-202 (2013)
- Cicchetti, D., Bronen, R., Spencer, S., Haut, S., Berg, A., Oliver, P., Tyrer, P.: Rating scales, scales of measurement, issues of reliability: resolving some critical issues for clinicians and researchers. The Journal of nervous and mental disease 194(8), 557- 564 (2006)
- Dumitrache, A., Aroyo, L., Welty, C.: Capturing ambiguity in crowdsourcing frame disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing. vol. 6 (2018)
- Eickhoff, C.: Cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining. pp. 162-170 (2018)
- Eickhoff, C., de Vries, A.P.: Increasing cheat robustness of crowdsourcing tasks. In- formation retrieval 16(2), 121-137 (2013)
- Foreman, B., Mahulikar, A., Tadi, P., Claassen, J., Szaflarski, J., Halford, J.J., Dean, B.C., Kaplan, P.W., Hirsch, L.J., LaRoche, S., et al.: Generalized periodic discharges and 'triphasic waves': a blinded evaluation of inter-rater agreement and clinical sig- nificance. Clinical Neurophysiology 127(2), 1073-1080 (2016)
- Guan, M., Gulshan, V., Dai, A., Hinton, G.: Who said what: Modeling individual labelers improves classification. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 32 (2018)
- Heinecke, S., Reyzin, L.: Crowdsourced PAC Learning under Classification Noise. In: Proceedings of the Seventh AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowd- sourcing. vol. 7, pp. 41-49. AAAI (2019)
- Hildebrandt, M.: The issue of bias. the framing powers of ml. In: editor, T. (ed.) Machine Learning and Society: Impact, Trust, Transparency. MIT Press (2021)
- Jagabathula, S., Subramanian, L., Venkataraman, A.: Identifying unreliable and ad- versarial workers in crowdsourced labeling tasks. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 18(1), 3233-3299 (2017)
- Jewett, M.A., Bombardier, C., Caron, D., Ryan, M.R., Gray, R.R., Louis, E.L.S., Witchell, S.J., Kumra, S., Psihramis, K.E.: Potential for inter-observer and intra- observer variability in x-ray review to establish stone-free rates after lithotripsy. The Journal of urology 147(3), 559-562 (1992)
- Kahneman, D., Rosenfield, A., Gandhi, L., Blaser, T.: Noise: How to overcome the high, hidden cost of inconsistent decision making. Harvard Business Review 94, 38- 46 (2016)
- Kompa, B., Snoek, J., Beam, A.L.: Second opinion needed: communicating uncer- tainty in medical machine learning. NPJ Digital Medicine 4(1), 1-6 (2021)
- Li, S.Y., Jiang, Y., Chawla, N.V., Zhou, Z.H.: Multi-label learning from crowds. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 31(7), 1369-1382 (2018)
- Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M.: The delphi method: Techniques and applications. In: The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley Publishing (1975)
- Lok, C.E., Morgan, C.D., Ranganathan, N.: The accuracy and interobserver agree- ment in detecting the 'gallop sounds' by cardiac auscultation. Chest 114(5), 1283- 1288 (1998)
- Mehta, S., Granton, J., Lapinsky, S.E., Newton, G., Bandayrel, K., Little, A., Siau, C., Cook, D.J., Ayers, D., Singer, J., et al.: Agreement in electrocardiogram interpre- tation in patients with septic shock. Read Online: Critical Care Medicine-Society of Critical Care Medicine 39(9), 2080-2086 (2011)
- Noble, J.A.: Minority voices of crowdsourcing: Why we should pay attention to every member of the crowd. In: proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work companion. pp. 179-182 (2012)
- Peterson, J.C., Battleday, R.M., Griffiths, T.L., Russakovsky, O.: Human uncertainty makes classification more robust. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 9617-9626 (2019)
- Plank, B., Hovy, D., Søgaard, A.: Learning part-of-speech taggers with inter- annotator agreement loss. In: Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. pp. 742-751 (2014)
- Rizos, G., Schuller, B.W.: Average jane, where art thou?-recent avenues in efficient machine learning under subjectivity uncertainty. In: International Conference on In- formation Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. pp. 42-55. Springer (2020)
- Salminen, J.O., Al-Merekhi, H.A., Dey, P., Jansen, B.J.: Inter-rater agreement for social computing studies. In: 2018 Fifth International Conference on Social Networks Analysis, Management and Security (SNAMS). pp. 80-87. IEEE (2018)
- Schaekermann, M., Goh, J., Larson, K., Law, E.: Resolvable vs. irresolvable disagree- ment: A study on worker deliberation in crowd work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2(CSCW), 1-19 (2018)
- Sharmanska, V., Hernández-Lobato, D., Miguel Hernandez-Lobato, J., Quadrianto, N.: Ambiguity helps: Classification with disagreements in crowdsourced annotations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion. pp. 2194-2202 (2016)
- Sudre, C.H., Anson, B.G., Ingala, S., Lane, C.D., Jimenez, D., Haider, L., Varsavsky, T., Tanno, R., Smith, L., Ourselin, S., et al.: Let's agree to disagree: Learning highly debatable multirater labelling. In: International Conference on Medical Image Com- puting and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 665-673. Springer (2019)
- Svensson, C.M., Figge, M.T., Hübler, R.: Automated classification of circulating tumor cells and the impact of interobsever variability on classifier training and per- formance. Journal of Immunology Research 2015 (2015)
- Uma, A., Fornaciari, T., Hovy, D., Paun, S., Plank, B., Poesio, M.: A case for soft loss functions. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing. vol. 8, pp. 173-177 (2020)
- Vaughan, J.W.: Making better use of the crowd: How crowdsourcing can advance machine learning research. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 18(1), 7026-7071 (2017)
- Wu, B., Chen, W., Sun, P., Liu, W., Ghanem, B., Lyu, S.: Tagging like humans: Diverse and distinct image annotation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 7967-7975 (2018)
- Yun, S., Oh, S.J., Heo, B., Han, D., Choe, J., Chun, S.: Re-labeling imagenet: from single to multi-labels, from global to localized labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05022 (2021) · arXiv
- Zhang, J., Wu, M., Sheng, V.S.: Ensemble learning from crowds. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 31(8), 1506-1519 (2018)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
NLPositionality: Characterizing Design Biases of Datasets and Models
Santy, S., Liang, J. T., Bras, R. L., Reinecke, K., & Sap, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.01943 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“We urge considering research through the lens of perspectivism (Basile et al., 2021), i.e. being mind-ful of different perspectives by sharing datasets with disaggregated annotations and finding modeling techniques that can handle inherent disagreements or distributions (Plank, 2022), instead of…”
Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability
Freiesleben, T., Meding, K., & König, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16041
- Authors
- Cabitza, F., Campagner, A., & Basile, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Milano-Bicocca (IT)
- IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi - Sant'Ambrogio (IT)
- University of Turin (IT)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2023-06-26
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 6860-6868
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 2374-3468
- OpenAlex
- W3197587259
- Cited by
- 114
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 25.42
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- BOA (University of Milano-Bicocca) (submittedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
- Keywords
- perspectivism, ground truth validation, data annotation, gold standard dataset, crowdsourcing, majority voting, clinical decision-making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review