How many labelers do you have? A closer look at gold-standard labels
The construction of most supervised learning datasets revolves around
collecting multiple labels for each instance, then aggregating the labels to
form a type of ``gold-standard.''. We question the wisdom of this pipeline by
developing a (stylized) theoretical model of this process and analyzing its
statistical consequences, showing how access to non-aggregated label
information can make training well-calibrated models easier or -- in some cases
-- even feasible, whereas it is impossible with only gold-standard labels. The
entire story, however, is subtle, and the contrasts between aggregated and
fuller label information depend on the particulars of the problem, where
estimators that use aggregated information exhibit robust but slower rates of
convergence, while estimators that can effectively leverage all labels converge
more quickly if they have fidelity to (or can learn) the true labeling process.
The theory we develop in the stylized model makes several predictions for
real-world datasets, including when non-aggregate labels should improve
learning performance, which we test to corroborate the validity of our
predictions.