Annotation

Robot Action Caption Verification at 47K Judgments

47,251Action captions verified in two passes
summary.md

Challenge:Action captions on egocentric video — temporal descriptions of what the person is doing — drift.

Solution:We ran verification in two passes and redesigned it between them.

Result:The program's caption corpus became trustworthy enough to supervise robot action learning directly, and the binary-judgment verification flow — full-clip viewing, one decision, immediate disagreement surfacing — is now our default for caption and transcript QA on egocentric video.

47,251Action captions verified across both passes
44,555Verifications in the 12-day second pass
500Rejected captions corrected and re-verified in pilot
2-passVerification passes, flow redesigned between them
// THE CHALLENGE

Action captions on egocentric video — temporal descriptions of what the person is doing — drift. Captioning models produce plausible-sounding text that is subtly wrong: the right action at the wrong time, the wrong object, or a description of intent where nothing happened. A robotics research program needed every action caption in its corpus checked by a human against the actual footage before the captions could supervise training, at a scale — tens of thousands of clips — that internal review could not absorb. The judgments had to be defensible: not a vibe check, but a repeatable decision a reviewer makes the same way every time.

// OUR APPROACH

We ran verification in two passes and redesigned it between them. Pass one verified captions with a structured review flow; its throughput was acceptable but judgment quality was hard to keep consistent as the reviewer pool grew.

Before the second pass we rebuilt the flow around one binary decision per judgment — does the caption accurately describe the action shown, in the interval shown, yes or no — with full-clip viewing required before the decision rendered and the caption, its interval, and the footage side by side. Binary decisions calibrate far faster than multi-way rubrics, and disagreements surface immediately instead of hiding inside a rating scale. The second pass delivered 44,555 verifications in 12 days.

Because a failed verification means the caption was wrong, not that the clip is worthless, we also ran a 500-item correction pilot: captions rejected in the new flow were corrected against the same footage and re-verified, turning a rejection stream into a repair stream.

  1. 01Verify v1Structured review of caption vs footage across the corpus
  2. 02RedesignRebuild the flow around one binary decision with full-clip viewing
  3. 03Verify v244,555 verifications in 12 days on the binary flow
  4. 04Repair500-item pilot correcting and re-verifying rejected captions

One judgment: the caption against the footage

Footage
full clip, watched end to end
Caption
interval
Decision
locked until full view
yes / no

Schematic of the second-pass flow. The reviewer watches the whole clip before the yes/no control appears, with the caption, its interval and the footage side by side.

// FOOTAGE

Hand-object footage on Explore

Public first-person clips from Claru Explore with their published descriptions, shown muted. This program asked a narrower question of temporal action captions: does the action happen, in this interval, with these objects?

Assembling a Lego structure on a white surface
Working on a beaded piece by hand
Welding metal pieces at a workshop bench
Shaping a small egg-shaped object by hand
Browse Tabletop & craft work on Explore
// QUALITY GATES
  1. Full-clip viewingThe decision control renders only after the reviewer has watched the whole clip.
  2. One binary decisionDoes the caption accurately describe the action shown, in the interval shown: yes or no.
  3. Side-by-side evidenceCaption, interval and footage appear together, so the judgment is made against the frames.
  4. Disagreement surfacingBinary calls make reviewer disagreement visible at once instead of hiding it inside a rating scale.
// RESULTS
47,251Action captions verified across both passes
44,555Verifications in the 12-day second pass
500Rejected captions corrected and re-verified in pilot
2-passVerification passes, flow redesigned between them

Verification volume

Verifications across both passes
47,251
Second pass, 12 days
44,555
Correction pilot, re-verified
500

Bar length is proportional to count. The redesigned second pass accounts for most of the total.

// WHAT THE CUSTOMER RECEIVED

A verdict for every action caption, plus corrected captions for the pilot set.

Per-caption verdict
Accept or reject: the described action occurs in the marked interval, performed by the person in frame, with the objects named.
Second-pass verdicts
44,555 verifications from the redesigned flow, delivered in 12 days.
Corrected captions
500 rejected captions rewritten against the same footage and re-verified.
// IMPACT

The program's caption corpus became trustworthy enough to supervise robot action learning directly, and the binary-judgment verification flow — full-clip viewing, one decision, immediate disagreement surfacing — is now our default for caption and transcript QA on egocentric video. The correction pilot also proved the economics: rejected captions can be repaired against the same footage for a fraction of fresh capture.

// WHY IT MATTERS

Verification is the unglamorous half of supervised learning. A training set of unverified captions teaches a model to be confidently wrong in exactly the way its supervision was wrong; a verified one converts human judgment into a floor of reliability under every downstream policy. Making verification cheap enough to run over tens of thousands of clips — without flattening the judgment itself — is what allows caption corpora to scale past what anyone can sanity-check by hand.

// DECISIONS WE MADE
Redesign the flow between passeswhyPass one's throughput was acceptable, but judgment quality was hard to keep consistent as the reviewer pool grew.
Binary decision over a rating rubricwhyBinary judgments calibrate quickly across a large pool; rating scales hide inconsistency in their middle.
Repair rejected captions, don't discard themwhyA failed verification means the caption was wrong, not that the clip is worthless.
// FAQ

Ready to build your next dataset?

Tell us about your project and we will scope a plan within 48 hours.