The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2405.11919 · v2 · pith:LI7PLRDE · submitted 2024-05-20 · cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

On Efficient and Statistical Quality Estimation for Data Annotation

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel pith:LI7PLRDErecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords qualitysamplesizesannotationerrorestimationratestatistical
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Annotated datasets are an essential ingredient to train, evaluate, compare and productionalize supervised machine learning models. It is therefore imperative that annotations are of high quality. For their creation, good quality management and thereby reliable quality estimates are needed. Then, if quality is insufficient during the annotation process, rectifying measures can be taken to improve it. Quality estimation is often performed by having experts manually label instances as correct or incorrect. But checking all annotated instances tends to be expensive. Therefore, in practice, usually only subsets are inspected; sizes are chosen mostly without justification or regard to statistical power and more often than not, are relatively small. Basing estimates on small sample sizes, however, can lead to imprecise values for the error rate. Using unnecessarily large sample sizes costs money that could be better spent, for instance on more annotations. Therefore, we first describe in detail how to use confidence intervals for finding the minimal sample size needed to estimate the annotation error rate. Then, we propose applying acceptance sampling as an alternative to error rate estimation We show that acceptance sampling can reduce the required sample sizes up to 50% while providing the same statistical guarantees.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Incentivizing High-Quality Human Annotations with Golden Questions

    cs.GT 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    The paper derives a Θ(1/√(n log n)) hypothesis testing rate under strategic annotator behavior and shows that high-certainty, format-similar golden questions better reveal annotation quality than standard checks.

  2. How Humans Help LLMs: Assessing and Incentivizing Human Preference Annotators

    cs.LG 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Develops self-consistency monitoring for preference annotators and derives sample-complexity bounds showing linear contracts achieve near-ideal performance faster than binary ones under continuous actions.

  3. Users as Annotators: LLM Preference Learning from Comparison Mode

    cs.CL 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Introduces a latent user quality model and EM algorithm to infer and filter noisy user-provided pairwise preferences for improved LLM alignment.