If you've ever built a machine learning algorithm, you'll know that gathering labeled datasets is a tremendous undertaking. Trying to conduct data annotation in-house only distracts teams from what they do best: building a strong AI. Outsourcing data annotation services is a proven way for teams to boost productivity, decrease development time and stay ahead of the competition. Individuals, researchers, companies, and governments are increasingly turning to data annotation companies as a viable solution to obtain both crowdsourced annotators and off-the-shelf annotation tools. As the number of AI training data service providers grows, how do you decide which to trust?
The growth of the AI industry has led to an increasing demand for data annotation services and the birth of more and more data annotation companies. Just what are annotation services and how do you use them to their full potential? This article will go over the types of annotation services, how to ensure good data annotation quality, and tips to help minimize annotation costs. Within the field of machine learning, annotation service providers are companies that annotate and process raw data, for the purpose of training AI models. Due to the large scale of data labelling tasks, annotation companies often employ crowdworkers to label the data and complete the project within the client's timeframe.
All of us are by now used to making extensive use of the so-called World Wide Web (WWW) which we might consider a great source of information, accessible through computers but, hitherto, only understandable to human beings. In its beginning, web pages were hand made, intended and oriented to the exchange of information among human beings. All of these documents contained a huge amount of text, images and even sounds, meaningless to a computer. In this way, they put on the reader the burden of extracting and interpreting the relevant information in them. Due to the astonishing growth of Interact use, new technologies emerged and, with them, machine-aided web page generation appeared.
The paper concentrates on obtaining hidden relationships among individual clauses of complex sentences from the Prague Dependency Treebank. The treebank contains only an information about mutual relationships among individual tokens (words, punctuation marks), not about more complex units (clauses). For the experiments with clauses and their parts (segments) it was therefore necessary to develop an automatic method transforming the original annotation into a scheme describing the syntactic relationships between clauses. The task was complicated by a certain degree of inconsistency in original annotation with regard to clauses and their structure. The paper describes the algorithm of deriving clause-related information from the existing annotation and its evaluation.
We explore the use of an interface to mark pairs of points on two images which are in correspondence with one another, as a way of collecting part annotations. The interface allows annotations of visual categories that are structurally diverse, such as chairs and buildings, where it is difficult to define a set of parts, or landmarks, that are consistent, namable or uniquely defined across all instances of the category. It allows flexibility in annotation -- the landmarks can be instance specific, are not constrained by language, could be many to one, etc and requires little category specific instructions. We compare our approach to two popular methods of collecting part annotations, (1) drawing bounding boxes for a set of parts, and (2) annotating a set of landmarks, in terms of annotation setup overhead, cost, difficulty, applicability and utility, and identify scenarios where one method is better suited than the others. Preliminary experiments suggest that such annotations between a sparse set of pairs can be used to bootstrap many high level visual recognition tasks such as part discovery and semantic saliency.