arXiv (All)
open access
Does Model Uncertainty Track Human Ambiguity? Evidence from Multi-Annotator Vision Benchmarks
Human-model alignment is critical for trustworthy AI-assisted decision-making systems. Yet, most work evaluates model predictions against single ground-truth labels, overlooking that humans themselves often disagree on labels, a signal of genuine ambiguity. We investigate whether models struggle on
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Uncertainty Quantification for Computer-Use Agents: A Benchmark across Vision-Language Models and GUI Grounding Datasets#1142726
- It Takes Little to Rewrite Perception: Targeted Semantic Substitution in Vision-Language Models at $ε\leq 4/255$#1142899
- Process Matters more than Output for Distinguishing Humans from Machines#1130545
- Voxeland: Probabilistic Instance-Aware Semantic Mapping with Evidence-based Uncertainty Quantification#974169
- Quantifying aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty in machine learning: Are conditional entropy and mutual information appropriate measures?#196156
Record · ID 1128774
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive