mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

k-Rater Reliability: The Correct Unit of Reliability for Aggregated Human Annotations

arXiv 2203.12913 ↗First posted 24 Mar 2022cs.AI stat.MLcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Since the inception of crowdsourcing, aggregation has been a common strategy for dealing with unreliable data. Aggregate ratings are more reliable than individual ones. However, many natural language processing (NLP) applications that rely on aggregate ratings only report the reliability of individual ratings, which is the incorrect unit of analysis. In these instances, the data reliability is under-reported, and a proposed k-rater reliability (kRR) should be used as the correct data reliability for aggregated datasets. It is a multi-rater generalization of inter-rater reliability (IRR). We conducted two replications of the WordSim-353 benchmark, and present empirical, analytical, and bootstrap-based methods for computing kRR on WordSim-353. These methods produce very similar results. We hope this discussion will nudge researchers to report kRR in addition to IRR.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Mar 2022.

Builds on

4 of 32 references.

References · 4

  1. 2016Ex Machina: Personal Attacks Seen at Scalecited by 210
  2. 2019Are We Modeling the Task or the Annotator? An Investigation of Annotator Bias in Natural Language Understanding Datasetscited by 175
  3. 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 126
  4. 2021Cross-replication Reliability -- An Empirical Approach to Interpreting Inter-rater Reliabilitycited by 31

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 4; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

7 papers.