179 questions
No questions match those filters.
Two annotators labeling a toxicity dataset where only 1...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansRaw percent agreement is a dangerous metric on imbalanced data because it doesn’t separate genuine consensus from the base rate doing the work for you. On a dataset that’s 99% “safe” by construction, an annotator who never engages with the content and simply marks everything “safe” will agree with an equally disengaged second annotator 99% of the time — not because they’re both making good judgments, but because the overwhelming majority class makes agreement nearly automatic. That 99% number carries essentially zero information about whether either annotator can actually recognize toxic content.
Cohen’s Kappa fixes this by explicitly subtracting out chance agreement: Kappa = (observed agreement − chance agreement) / (1 − chance agreement). When both annotators just default to the majority label, chance agreement is already close to 99%, so the numerator collapses toward zero and Kappa lands near 0.0 even though raw accuracy reads 99%. A Kappa near zero on data that looks “99% agreed upon” is the actual signal that something is wrong — the annotators aren’t distinguishing the positive class, whether because of unclear guidelines, insufficient training, or fatigue on a rare-event task.
Practically: never accept raw agreement on any dataset with meaningful class imbalance. Compute Kappa (or Fleiss’ Kappa with three or more annotators) as the actual quality gate, and treat a low value — commonly below roughly 0.6 — as a signal to fix the labeling guidelines and re-annotate a sample, not as a data quality issue you can average away with more labels from the same process.