A Model for Imbalanced Label Aggregation: A Focus on Minority-Class Detection

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.

Optimal Fair Aggregation of Crowdsourced Noisy Labels using Demographic Parity Constraints

As acquiring reliable ground-truth labels is usually costly, or infeasible, crowdsourcing and aggregation of noisy human annotations is the typical resort. Aggregating subjective labels, though, may amplify individual biases, particularly regarding sensitive features, raising fairness concerns. Nonetheless, fairness in crowdsourced aggregation remains largely unexplored, with no existing convergence guarantees and only limited post-processing approaches for enforcing $\varepsilon$-fairness under demographic parity. We address this gap by analyzing the fairness s of crowdsourced aggregation methods within the $\varepsilon$-fairness framework, for Majority Vote and Optimal Bayesian aggregation. In the small-crowd regime, we derive an upper bound on the fairness gap of Majority Vote in terms of the fairness gaps of the individual annotators. We further show that the fairness gap of the aggregated consensus converges exponentially fast to that of the ground-truth under interpretable conditions. Since ground-truth itself may still be unfair, we generalize a state-of-the-art multiclass fairness post-processing algorithm from the continuous to the discrete setting, which enforces strict demographic parity constraints to any aggregation rule. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach and corroborate the theoretical insights.