Humanly Certifying Superhuman Classifiers
  Estimating the performance of a machine learning system is a longstanding
challenge in artificial intelligence research. Today, this challenge is
especially relevant given the emergence of systems which appear to increasingly
outperform human beings. In some cases, this "superhuman" performance is
readily demonstrated; for example by defeating legendary human players in
traditional two player games. On the other hand, it can be challenging to
evaluate classification models that potentially surpass human performance.
Indeed, human annotations are often treated as a ground truth, which implicitly
assumes the superiority of the human over any models trained on human
annotations. In reality, human annotators can make mistakes and be subjective.
Evaluating the performance with respect to a genuine oracle may be more
objective and reliable, even when querying the oracle is expensive or
impossible. In this paper, we first raise the challenge of evaluating the
performance of both humans and models with respect to an oracle which is
unobserved. We develop a theory for estimating the accuracy compared to the
oracle, using only imperfect human annotations for reference. Our analysis
provides a simple recipe for detecting and certifying superhuman performance in
this setting, which we believe will assist in understanding the stage of
current research on classification. We validate the convergence of the bounds
and the assumptions of our theory on carefully designed toy experiments with
known oracles. Moreover, we demonstrate the utility of our theory by
meta-analyzing large-scale natural language processing tasks, for which an
oracle does not exist, and show that under our assumptions a number of models
from recent years are with high probability superhuman.
