REVIEW 1 cited by
Best-Worst Scaling More Reliable than Rating Scales: A Case Study on Sentiment Intensity Annotation
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
Best-Worst Scaling More Reliable than Rating Scales: A Case Study on Sentiment Intensity Annotation
read the original abstract
Rating scales are a widely used method for data annotation; however, they present several challenges, such as difficulty in maintaining inter- and intra-annotator consistency. Best-worst scaling (BWS) is an alternative method of annotation that is claimed to produce high-quality annotations while keeping the required number of annotations similar to that of rating scales. However, the veracity of this claim has never been systematically established. Here for the first time, we set up an experiment that directly compares the rating scale method with BWS. We show that with the same total number of annotations, BWS produces significantly more reliable results than the rating scale.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Adaptive Margin RLHF via Preference over Preferences
Adaptive margins for DPO inferred from preference-over-preference comparisons improve alignment quality, with random sampling of comparisons working best overall.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.