mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Improving ML Training Data with Gold-Standard Quality Metrics

arXiv 2512.20577 ↗First posted 23 Dec 2025cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Hand-tagged training data is essential to many machine learning tasks. However, training data quality control has received little attention in the literature, despite data quality varying considerably with the tagging exercise. We propose methods to evaluate and enhance the quality of hand-tagged training data using statistical approaches to measure tagging consistency and agreement. We show that agreement metrics give more reliable results if recorded over multiple iterations of tagging, where declining variance in such recordings is an indicator of increasing data quality. We also show one way a tagging project can collect high-quality training data without requiring multiple tags for every work item, and that a tagger burn-in period may not be sufficient for minimizing tagger errors.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 1 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Dec 2025.

Builds on

1 of 11 references.

References · 1

  1. 2018CrowdTruth 2.0: Quality Metrics for Crowdsourcing with Disagreementcited by 27

Built on by

Not cited yet.