  Although agreement between annotators has been studied in the past from a
statistical viewpoint, little work has attempted to quantify the extent to
which this phenomenon affects the evaluation of computer vision (CV) object
detection algorithms. Many researchers utilise ground truth (GT) in experiments
and more often than not this GT is derived from one annotator's opinion. How
does the difference in opinion affect an algorithm's evaluation? Four examples
of typical CV problems are chosen, and a methodology is applied to each to
quantify the inter-annotator variance and to offer insight into the mechanisms
behind agreement and the use of GT. It is found that when detecting linear
objects annotator agreement is very low. The agreement in object position,
linear or otherwise, can be partially explained through basic image properties.
Automatic object detectors are compared to annotator agreement and it is found
that a clear relationship exists. Several methods for calculating GTs from a
number of annotations are applied and the resulting differences in the
performance of the object detectors are quantified. It is found that the rank
of a detector is highly dependent upon the method used to form the GT. It is
also found that although the STAPLE and LSML GT estimation methods appear to
represent the mean of the performance measured using the individual
annotations, when there are few annotations, or there is a large variance in
them, these estimates tend to degrade. Furthermore, one of the most commonly
adopted annotation combination methods--consensus voting--accentuates more
obvious features, which results in an overestimation of the algorithm's
performance. Finally, it is concluded that in some datasets it may not be
possible to state with any confidence that one algorithm outperforms another
when evaluating upon one GT and a method for calculating confidence bounds is
discussed.
