| # RunningBench Manual Annotation · Annotator Guide |
|
|
| [中文版 / Chinese version → README.md](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** |
| |
| 1. Double-click `review.html`. Enter your name in the top-right box (it is written into the export). |
| 2. 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.** |
| 3. 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. |
| 4. 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: |
|
|
| 1. **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. |
| 2. **Check against your timeline.** Bollards 1:12, benches 1:27, barriers 1:40 — all |
| three hold → supported. |
| 3. **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.** |
|
|
