On the Calibration of Crowdsourcing Aggregators

Confidence calibration assumes a unique ground-truth label per input, yet this assumption fails wherever annotators genuinely disagree. Post-hoc calibrators fitted on majority-voted labels, the standard single-label targets used in practice, can appear well-calibrated under conventional evaluation yet remain substantially miscalibrated against the underlying annotator distribution. We show that this failure is structural: under simplifying assumptions, Temperature Scaling is biased toward temperatures that underestimate annotator uncertainty, with true-label miscalibration increasing monotonically with annotation entropy. To address this, we develop a family of ambiguity-aware post-hoc calibrators that optimise proper scoring rules against the full label distribution and require no model retraining. Our methods span progressively weaker annotation requirements: Dirichlet-Soft leverages the full annotator distribution and achieves the best overall calibration quality across settings; Monte Carlo Temperature Scaling with a single annotation per example (MCTS S=1) matches full-distribution calibration across all benchmarks, demonstrating that pre-aggregated label distributions are unnecessary; and Label-Smooth Temperature Scaling (LS-TS) operates with voted labels alone by constructing data-driven pseudo-soft targets from the model's own confidence. Experiments on four benchmarks with real multi-annotator distributions (CIFAR-10H, ChaosNLI) and clinically-informed synthetic annotations (ISIC~2019, DermaMNIST) show that Dirichlet-Soft reduces true-label ECE by 55-87% relative to Temperature Scaling, while LS-TS reduces ECE by 9-77% without any annotator data.

We study imbalanced crowdsourcing with a focus on class-dependent annotator accuracy, a setting that, to the best of our knowledge, remains relatively underexplored despite its importance in real-world inspection systems where the labels of greatest operational importance are also the rarest ones. In this setting, annotators may be reliable on both classes, unreliable on both classes, majority-class specialists, or minority-class specialists. Existing models only partially address this problem: they either capture class-dependent errors but ignore item difficulty, or they model item difficulty without capturing class-dependent errors. To fill this gap for imbalanced datasets in crowdsourcing, we introduce a generative aggregation model combining item difficulty with class-dependent annotator competence. The model allows both annotator abilities and item difficulties to vary across classes. We then revisit Condorcet's Jury Theorem in the class-imbalanced setting. We also show that majority voting asymptotically preserves the underlying class proportion. We evaluate our model on $33$ real-world crowdsourcing datasets, covering multiclass tasks such as images and text, as well as two large-scale regimes: large-scale annotation datasets, with many annotations per item, and large-scale item datasets, with a large number of annotated instances. Across these diverse settings, our model consistently achieves the highest minority recall while remaining competitive in balanced accuracy, making it particularly relevant when rare-label recovery is the primary objective.

Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features. We propose Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework that combines these complementary sources. Stage-1 aggregates heterogeneous comparative judgments into a consensus ranking using a rank-aggregation model that accounts for annotator reliability. Stage-2 calibrates any predictive model's scores by an isotonic projection onto the order, enforcing ordinal consistency while preserving as much of the model's quantitative information as possible. Theoretically, we show: (1) modeling annotator heterogeneity yields strictly more efficient consensus estimation than homogeneity; (2) isotonic calibration enjoys risk bounds even when the consensus ranking is misspecified; and (3) AtC asymptotically outperforms model-only assessment. Across semi-synthetic and real-world datasets, AtC consistently improves accuracy and robustness over human-only or model-only assessments. Our results bridge judgment aggregation with model-free calibration, providing a principled recipe for human-centered assessment when ground truth is costly, scarce, or unverifiable.