On Efficient and Statistical Quality Estimation for Data Annotation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 May 2024.
Builds on
7 of 43 references.
References · 7
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2017Revisiting Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data in Deep Learning Eracited by 919
- 2021Pervasive Label Errors in Test Sets Destabilize Machine Learning Benchmarkscited by 395
- 2022When does dough become a bagel? Analyzing the remaining mistakes on ImageNetcited by 61
- 2022Annotation Error Detection: Analyzing the Past and Present for a More Coherent Futurecited by 45
- 2023Analyzing Dataset Annotation Quality Management in the Wildcited by 41
- 2019Sentiment analysis is not solved! Assessing and probing sentiment classificationcited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 3.
8 papers.
- 2025When Models Lie, We Learn: Multilingual Span-Level Hallucination Detection with PsiloQAcited by 14
- 2025When Incentives Backfire, Data Stops Being Humancited by 4
- 2024Trust & Safety of LLMs and LLMs in Trust & Safetycited by 3
- 2025Incentivizing High-Quality Human Annotations with Golden Questionscited by 0
- 2025Users as Annotators: LLM Preference Learning from Comparison Modecited by 0
- 2026DanceCrafter: Fine-Grained Text-Driven Controllable Dance Generation via Choreographic Syntaxcited by 0
- 2026Looks Can be Deceiving: Annotator and Reviewer Performance Across Imagery Sources in Crowd-Sourced Aerial Damage Assessmentcited by 0
- 2026LLM Judge Validation Under Sparse Overlap: From Inference to Designcited by 0
- 2026LLM Judge Validation Under Sparse Overlap: From Inference to Design25 Sep 2026
- 2026Looks Can be Deceiving: Annotator and Reviewer Performance Across Imagery Sources in Crowd-Sourced Aerial Damage Assessment14 Aug 2026
- 2026DanceCrafter: Fine-Grained Text-Driven Controllable Dance Generation via Choreographic Syntax20 Apr 2026
- 2025Users as Annotators: LLM Preference Learning from Comparison Mode10 Oct 2025
- 2025When Models Lie, We Learn: Multilingual Span-Level Hallucination Detection with PsiloQA6 Oct 2025
- 2025Incentivizing High-Quality Human Annotations with Golden Questions25 May 2025
- 2025When Incentives Backfire, Data Stops Being Human11 Feb 2025
- 2024Trust & Safety of LLMs and LLMs in Trust & Safety3 Dec 2024