4.6 Article

Crowdsourcing image analysis for plant phenomics to generate ground truth data for machine learning

期刊

PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006337

关键词

-

资金

  1. Iowa State University Presidential Interdisciplinary Research Initiative
  2. Iowa State University Plant Sciences Institute Faculty Scholars Program
  3. USDA Agricultural Research Service
  4. National Science Foundation [ABI 1458359]
  5. Iowa State University
  6. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [1458359] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The accuracy of machine learning tasks critically depends on high quality ground truth data. Therefore, in many cases, producing good ground truth data typically involves trained professionals; however, this can be costly in time, effort, and money. Here we explore the use of crowdsourcing to generate a large number of training data of good quality. We explore an image analysis task involving the segmentation of corn tassels from images taken in a field setting. We investigate the accuracy, speed and other quality metrics when this task is performed by students for academic credit, Amazon MTurk workers, and Master Amazon MTurk workers. We conclude that the Amazon MTurk and Master Mturk workers perform significantly better than the for-credit students, but with no significant difference between the two MTurk worker types. Furthermore, the quality of the segmentation produced by Amazon MTurk workers rivals that of an expert worker. We provide best practices to assess the quality of ground truth data, and to compare data quality produced by different sources. We conclude that properly managed crowdsourcing can be used to establish large volumes of viable ground truth data at a low cost and high quality, especially in the context of high throughput plant phenotyping. We also provide several metrics for assessing the quality of the generated datasets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据