Robot Action Caption Verification at 47K Judgments
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.
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.
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.
- 01Verify v1Structured review of caption vs footage across the corpus
- 02RedesignRebuild the flow around one binary decision with full-clip viewing
- 03Verify v244,555 verifications in 12 days on the binary flow
- 04Repair500-item pilot correcting and re-verifying rejected captions
- 01Verify v1Structured review of caption vs footage across the corpus
- 02RedesignRebuild the flow around one binary decision with full-clip viewing
- 03Verify v244,555 verifications in 12 days on the binary flow
- 04Repair500-item pilot correcting and re-verifying rejected captions
One judgment: the caption against the footage
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.
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?
- Full-clip viewingThe decision control renders only after the reviewer has watched the whole clip.
- One binary decisionDoes the caption accurately describe the action shown, in the interval shown: yes or no.
- Side-by-side evidenceCaption, interval and footage appear together, so the judgment is made against the frames.
- Disagreement surfacingBinary calls make reviewer disagreement visible at once instead of hiding it inside a rating scale.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- How to Validate Action Labels in Robot DatasetsChecking labels against footage
- How to Create Temporal Annotations for Video DataIntervals, boundaries and review
- Inter-annotator agreementMeasuring consistency across reviewers
- Action segmentationParsing continuous activity into actions
- Explore: Workshops & job sitesPublic first-person workshop clips
Ready to build your next dataset?
Tell us about your project and we will scope a plan within 48 hours.