As a guest user you are not logged in or recognized by your IP address. You have
access to the Front Matter, Abstracts, Author Index, Subject Index and the full
text of Open Access publications.
Human-annotated data is a fundamental part of natural language processing system development and evaluation. The quality of that data is typically assessed by calculating the agreement between the annotators. It is widely assumed that this agreement between annotators is the upper limit on system performance in natural language processing: if humans can't agree with each other about the classification more than some percentage of the time, we don't expect a computer to do any better. We trace the logical positivist roots of the motivation for measuring inter-annotator agreement, demonstrate the prevalence of the widely-held assumption about the relationship between inter-annotator agreement and system performance, and present data that suggest that inter-annotator agreement is not, in fact, an upper bound on language processing system performance.
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. They also allow us to analyze user behavior in order to constantly improve the website for you. Info about the privacy policy of IOS Press.
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to provide you with the best possible experience. They also allow us to analyze user behavior in order to constantly improve the website for you. Info about the privacy policy of IOS Press.