close this message
arXiv smileybones

arXiv Is Hiring a DevOps Engineer

Work on one of the world's most important websites and make an impact on open science.

View Jobs
Skip to main content
Cornell University

arXiv Is Hiring a DevOps Engineer

View Jobs
We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate
arxiv logo > cs > arXiv:2307.02191

Help | Advanced Search

arXiv logo
Cornell University Logo

quick links

  • Login
  • Help Pages
  • About

Computer Science > Machine Learning

arXiv:2307.02191 (cs)
[Submitted on 5 Jul 2023 (v1), last revised 13 Apr 2025 (this version, v2)]

Title:Evaluating AI systems under uncertain ground truth: a case study in dermatology

Authors:David Stutz, Ali Taylan Cemgil, Abhijit Guha Roy, Tatiana Matejovicova, Melih Barsbey, Patricia Strachan, Mike Schaekermann, Jan Freyberg, Rajeev Rikhye, Beverly Freeman, Javier Perez Matos, Umesh Telang, Dale R. Webster, Yuan Liu, Greg S. Corrado, Yossi Matias, Pushmeet Kohli, Yun Liu, Arnaud Doucet, Alan Karthikesalingam
View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating AI systems under uncertain ground truth: a case study in dermatology, by David Stutz and 19 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:For safety, medical AI systems undergo thorough evaluations before deployment, validating their predictions against a ground truth which is assumed to be fixed and certain. However, this ground truth is often curated in the form of differential diagnoses. While a single differential diagnosis reflects the uncertainty in one expert assessment, multiple experts introduce another layer of uncertainty through disagreement. Both forms of uncertainty are ignored in standard evaluation which aggregates these differential diagnoses to a single label. In this paper, we show that ignoring uncertainty leads to overly optimistic estimates of model performance, therefore underestimating risk associated with particular diagnostic decisions. To this end, we propose a statistical aggregation approach, where we infer a distribution on probabilities of underlying medical condition candidates themselves, based on observed annotations. This formulation naturally accounts for the potential disagreements between different experts, as well as uncertainty stemming from individual differential diagnoses, capturing the entire ground truth uncertainty. Our approach boils down to generating multiple samples of medical condition probabilities, then evaluating and averaging performance metrics based on these sampled probabilities. In skin condition classification, we find that a large portion of the dataset exhibits significant ground truth uncertainty and standard evaluation severely over-estimates performance without providing uncertainty estimates. In contrast, our framework provides uncertainty estimates on common metrics of interest such as top-k accuracy and average overlap, showing that performance can change multiple percentage points. We conclude that, while assuming a crisp ground truth can be acceptable for many AI applications, a more nuanced evaluation protocol should be utilized in medical diagnosis.
Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Methodology (stat.ME); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
Cite as: arXiv:2307.02191 [cs.LG]
  (or arXiv:2307.02191v2 [cs.LG] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.02191
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Related DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2025.103556
DOI(s) linking to related resources

Submission history

From: David Stutz [view email]
[v1] Wed, 5 Jul 2023 10:33:45 UTC (1,481 KB)
[v2] Sun, 13 Apr 2025 11:30:08 UTC (1,670 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Evaluating AI systems under uncertain ground truth: a case study in dermatology, by David Stutz and 19 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source
  • Other Formats
license icon view license
Current browse context:
cs.LG
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2023-07
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CV
stat
stat.ME
stat.ML

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
a export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy logo Reddit logo

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
Papers with Code (What is Papers with Code?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
  • About
  • Help
  • contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact
  • subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Web Accessibility Assistance
  • arXiv Operational Status
    Get status notifications via email or slack