Pith. sign in

REVIEW

When the Ground Truth is not True: Modelling Human Biases in Temporal Annotations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.02706 v1 pith:YQZV4A5K submitted 2023-02-06 cs.LG cs.HC

classification cs.LGcs.HC
keywords biasesannotationstemporalactivitiesdailydatagroundhuman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

In supervised learning, low quality annotations lead to poorly performing classification and detection models, while also rendering evaluation unreliable. This is particularly apparent on temporal data, where annotation quality is affected by multiple factors. For example, in the post-hoc self-reporting of daily activities, cognitive biases are one of the most common ingredients. In particular, reporting the start and duration of an activity after its finalisation may incorporate biases introduced by personal time perceptions, as well as the imprecision and lack of granularity due to time rounding. Here we propose a method to model human biases on temporal annotations and argue for the use of soft labels. Experimental results in synthetic data show that soft labels provide a better approximation of the ground truth for several metrics. We showcase the method on a real dataset of daily activities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools