Datasets:

taryya
/

RunningBench

Modalities:

RunningBench / README_EN.md

taryya

add English annotator guide

58a1635 verified about 2 months ago

preview code

Raw History Blame Contribute Delete

14 kB

RunningBench Manual Annotation · Annotator Guide

中文版 / Chinese version → README.md

This repository distributes the RunningBench human-annotation packs. 10 packs, annotation_bundles/bundle_01.tar … bundle_10.tar, 1,526 questions in total, ~150 per pack, stratified by source (fullvideo / excerpt / p01ma_gdrive / p01ma_hf / rbma273). The packs contain no gold answers.

1. What you do (procedure)

Task. Every question comes with a few video clips and 6–8 options; the stem asks for exactly n options (usually 3). You watch the footage, decide for every single option whether the footage supports it, give your final answer, and judge whether the question itself is clear. There is no blind-guess step — watch first.

Setup. Download the tar assigned to you and extract it. Nothing to install, no network needed.

Steps

Double-click review.html. Enter your name in the top-right box (it is written into the export).
For every question, four steps:
- ① Watch. Play all of the question's clips end to end and write a timeline as you go: turns (direction, rough sharpness), surface changes, anything with a number / text / distinctive colour, moving people and vehicles, prominent buildings. ±3 seconds is plenty — you need order and rough position, not stopwatch accuracy. For multi-clip questions keep one timeline per clip, and remember clip label order is not time order (CLIP_A is not necessarily earlier than CLIP_B).
- ② Check every option. Click one mark per option — never judge on overall impression:
  - ✓ supported — you can point to the seconds that show it.
  - ✗ ruled out — the footage contradicts it. One wrong detail is wrong (side swapped, order reversed, colour wrong). If the footage covers that place/moment and the thing is not there, that is also ruled out.
  - ? undecidable — the footage never covers the place or moment the option talks about.
- ③ Final answer. Tick exactly n options; the box follows your ✓ marks by default. If your ✓ count ≠ n, do not force it: tick your n most confident options, choose verdict ambiguous, and say in the notes which option caused it.
- ④ Verdict + notes.
  - clear — exactly one defensible answer set, visible on screen.
  - ambiguous — a second set of options is also defensible, the stem is ambiguous, or your ✓ count ≠ n.
  - cant_tell — footage blurred, missing, or never covers the key moment.
  - Notes: which option was the problem, what you saw, roughly at what second. This is the most valuable feedback you can give.
A finished question turns green; the filter at the top shows what is left. Progress is saved automatically in your browser — close and resume any time. Changing computers: Export JSON first, then Import it on the new machine.
When everything is done, click Export JSON (top right) and send back the downloaded annotation_<name>_<date>.json.

Workload. 2–3 minutes per single-clip question, 4–6 for multi-clip comparisons, roughly 80–100 questions per day. Take a break every 90 minutes — fatigue measurably lowers near-miss detection.

Clip naming. CLIP_1, CLIP_2 … are time-ordered cuts from one recording; CLIP_A … CLIP_J are the anonymous clips named in the stem, order unrelated to time; VIDEO_A … VIDEO_R are anonymous recording ids used by cross-recording comparison questions.

2. How to watch and judge (full manual)

This workflow has no blind-guess step. Ignore any sentence below about "blind / Step 1"; everything else applies unchanged.

0. One overriding principle

Check every option against the footage. Never judge on overall impression.

Wrong way: watch the clip, then pick "the three that feel right". Right way: go through all 8 options one at a time. For each one, find the frame that supports it or the frame that rules it out. If you find neither, mark it undecidable.

Why: these distractors are deliberate near-misses — they take something that really is on screen and change one or two details (a side swapped, an order reversed, a colour wrong). On an impression pass every near-miss looks familiar and you miss the altered detail. Only option-by-option checking catches it.

1. Two passes

Pass one — watch straight through, build a timeline

Set the options aside. Play the clip end to end and write a timeline as you go:

0:05  start, asphalt road, streetlights on
0:18  right turn, onto cobblestone
0:31  building marked 11 on the left
0:44  oncoming cyclist with headlight
0:58  passing bicycle racks
1:12  through two striped bollards
1:27  concrete benches on the right
1:40  red-and-white construction barriers begin

What to note: turns (direction and roughly how sharp), surface changes, anything with a number, text or distinctive colour, moving people and vehicles, prominent buildings. You do not need everything — you need the things a question might be built on.

Timestamps need no precision; ±3 seconds is plenty. What you want is order and rough position, not stopwatch accuracy.

For multi-clip questions (the stem names labels like CLIP_B, CLIP_F): keep a separate timeline per clip, with the label at the top. Note that label order does not imply time order — CLIP_A is not necessarily earlier than CLIP_B.

Pass two — check each option at fixed points

Now open the options and take them one at a time:

Break out what it claims. For example option B: "passing between two striped bollards onto a path with concrete benches occurs earlier than the red-and-white construction barriers" breaks into three claims — ① there are striped bollards ② benches follow them ③ both come before the barriers.
Check against your timeline. Bollards 1:12, benches 1:27, barriers 1:40 — all three hold → supported.
Unsure? Scrub back. Jump to the matching point in your timeline and watch just those few seconds. This is what the timeline is for: pass two needs no re-watch, only spot checks.

Mark each option on paper: ✓ supported · ✗ ruled out (note which detail is wrong) · ? undecidable

Finish all 8 before concluding. ✓ should come to exactly 3 — more or fewer is itself a finding (either the annotation is wrong or the question is ambiguous), and reporting it is the point.

2. What to look for, per question type

Type	Note in pass one	Check in pass two
`event-order`	timestamp of each salient event	every "X before Y" claim against the timeline
`turn-pattern`	each turn: direction, sharpness, junction features	whether the stated direction/angle/sequence is reversed
`landmark-order`	when each landmark appears and which side	order and side (side is the detail most often altered)
`landmark-revisit`	when a thing reappears, and the direction	whether it really is the same object (colour, text, damage)
`environment-*`	where surface, vegetation or building density changes	the direction of change ("asphalt→gravel" or the reverse)
`spatial-consistency`	key objects left / right / ahead	on an out-and-back, right on the way out is left on the way back
`same-place-different-recording`	a landmark list per clip	landmark by landmark: the same tree? the same sign?
`route-identity`	surface and turn sequence per clip	only a matching turn sequence proves the same route; one similar landmark does not

For cross-recording questions (comparing two separate takes), also note:

Lighting can differ completely (one by day, one at night) — do not call it a different place just because it "looks unlike"
To judge same place, rely on what does not change: building shape, the path's geometry, fixed fixtures
To judge different, rely on structural differences — a different turn sequence, a different surface — not on incidental pedestrians and vehicles

3. Verdict rules (three easy ones to get wrong)

① The option names something the footage does not contain

It depends, and this is the most commonly misjudged case:

The clip does cover the place or moment the option is about, and the thing is not there → ✗ ruled out. Example: the option says "a dark grey station wagon parked by the benches"; the clip clearly shows the bench area and there is no vehicle → ruled out.
The clip never covers that place or moment → ? undecidable. Example: the option talks about "after crossing the bridge" and the clip ends before the bridge → undecidable.

The difference is whether the footage gave you the chance to rule it out.

② The option is mostly right, wrong in one detail

→ ✗ ruled out. One wrong detail is wrong. Near-miss distractors look exactly like this; "benches on the right" (they are on the left) does not get a pass because there really are benches.

③ Your count does not match the annotation's

When you count 4 ✓ or only 2 ✓, do not force it to three. Report honestly:

give your three most confident as the "final answer"
pick verdict ambiguous (more than three defensible) or wrong_answer
write in the notes which option caused it — that is the most valuable feedback

4. A full worked example (real question)

Type: event-order · 2 clips (CLIP_C, CLIP_F, two stretches of one night run)

Q: Which of the following correctly describe the chronological sequence of events along the route? Select three.

A. The oncoming cyclist with a bright headlight is passed before reaching the building marked 11 B. Passing between two striped bollards onto a path with concrete benches occurs earlier than running past the red-and-white construction barriers C. Running alongside the barriers occurs earlier than passing between the bollards ← note: exactly the negation of B D. The runner meets the concrete benches after the straight paved stretch past the barriers E. The building marked 11 is passed on the cobblestone section before reaching the bicycle racks F. The cyclist is encountered on the straight asphalt stretch with barriers, not on the curved cobblestone path G. The building marked 11 is passed before encountering the cyclist on the cobblestone ← the negation of A H. Running past the bicycle racks on cobblestone occurs before the straight paved path bordered by lawns under warm streetlamps

Pass one, a timeline per clip:

CLIP_C: 0:03 cobblestone · 0:15 oncoming cyclist (headlight) · 0:29 building "11" · 0:41 bike racks
CLIP_F: 0:05 two striped bollards · 0:12 concrete benches (right) · ~0:30 lawn-lined straight (streetlamps) · 0:47 barriers

One thing is still missing: which of CLIP_C and CLIP_F comes first? The labels do not say. You have to infer it from the footage — whether the scene at the end of CLIP_C continues into the start of CLIP_F, or from continuity of environment — and if you cannot, lean on the options decidable within a single clip.

Pass two, option by option:

A  cyclist (C 0:15) before building 11 (C 0:29)       → ✓ decidable within one clip
B  bollards (F 0:05) before barriers (F 0:47)         → ✓ decidable within one clip
C  the reverse of B                                   → ✗
D  benches (F 0:12) come before barriers (F 0:47); the option says after → ✗
E  building 11 (0:29) before bike racks (0:41)? direction reads right → wait, check again... ✓?
   But the annotation does not list E!
   → Re-watch 0:29–0:41: the racks were already at the frame edge around 0:26 → E is ✗
F  the cyclist is on the cobblestone stretch (C); the option says the asphalt/barriers stretch → ✗
G  the reverse of A                                   → ✗
H  bike racks (C 0:41, cobblestone) before the lawn-lined straight (F) → ✓ needs the
   cross-clip order, settled from the footage

✓ = A, B, H — exactly three, matching the annotation → verdict correct.

Note what happened at E: the timeline almost misled me — pass one missed the racks at the frame edge around 0:26. So any option you are unsure about must be re-watched. The timeline is an index, not evidence.

5. Common mistakes

Mistake	Consequence
Picking three on overall impression instead of checking each option	every near-miss slips through
Watching first, then filling in a blind guess	the blind data is void; guessability reads too low
Treating every "not in the footage" as ruled out	conflates undecidable with ruled out; overstates quality
Forgetting the side swap on out-and-back stretches	every spatial question comes out reversed
Reading CLIP label order as time order	event-order questions come out reversed
Forcing the count (you see 4 correct, you pick 3)	hides the ambiguity that was worth reporting
Calling cross-recording clips "different places" because the lighting differs	every day/night comparison fails

6. How much can you do in a day

Once you are fluent: roughly 2–3 minutes per single-clip question, 4–6 for multi-clip comparisons. About 80–100 questions in a 6-hour day. The recommended 120-question sample takes about a day and a half.

Fatigue measurably reduces near-miss detection — do not review for more than 90 minutes at a stretch. Take a break and come back.

3. Returning results and acceptance

Return one exported JSON per annotator, unedited.
Acceptance: annotation agreement > 90 % (computed by us against the gold answers). A low agreement is not your failure — it is the questions'. Reporting honestly is what matters most.