敏捷协商:面向主观视觉分类的概念协商
Agile Deliberation: Concept Deliberation for Subjective Visual Classification
对做视觉分类器落地的人,这篇给出了一个可复用的「概念协商」流程:先用层级子概念分解把模糊概念结构化,再主动挑出语义边界样本让用户反馈,从而在概念本身会漂移的主观任务上迭代对齐分类器;其18场、每场1.5小时的用户实验协议也可作为主观分类系统评测的参考。
原文依据 surfaces semantically borderline examples for user reflection and feedback to iteratively align an image classifier with the user's evolving intent
摘要译文
由模型翻译 · 术语统一 · 请对照原文核对关键结论从内容审核到内容策展,需要视觉分类器来识别视觉概念的应用正在迅速扩展。现有的人在回路方法通常假设用户一开始就具有清晰、稳定的概念理解,从而能够提供高质量监督。但在现实中,用户往往从一个模糊的想法出发,必须通过「概念协商」反复细化它——这一实践是我们通过对内容审核专家的结构化访谈发现的。我们将真实内容审核员在协商中使用的常见策略落实为一个名为 Agile Deliberation 的人在回路框架,显式支持不断演化且主观的概念。该系统通过让用户接触边界案例来帮助他们为自己定义概念。系统借助两个协商阶段实现这一点:(1) 概念界定,将初始概念分解为结构化的子概念层级;(2) 概念迭代,呈现语义上的边界样例供用户反思与反馈,从而让图像分类器与用户不断演化的意图迭代对齐。由于概念协商本质上是主观且交互式的,我们没有采用标准基准数据集,而是通过 18 场、每场 1.5 小时的用户实验对框架进行了细致的评估。我们发现,Agile Deliberation 的 F1 分数比自动分解基线高 7.5%,比人工协商高 3% 以上,同时参与者报告了更清晰的概念理解和更低的认知负荷。
英文原文摘要 1568 字符
From content moderation to content curation, applications requiring vision classifiers for visual concepts are rapidly expanding. Existing human-in-the-loop approaches typically assume users begin with a clear, stable concept understanding to be able to provide high-quality supervision. In reality, users often start with a vague idea and must iteratively refine it through "concept deliberation", a practice we uncovered through structured interviews with content moderation experts. We operationalize the common strategies in deliberation used by real content moderators into a human-in-the-loop framework called Agile Deliberation that explicitly supports evolving and subjective concepts. The system supports users in defining the concept for themselves by exposing them to borderline cases. The system does this with two deliberation stages: (1) concept scoping, which decomposes the initial concept into a structured hierarchy of sub-concepts, and (2) concept iteration, which surfaces semantically borderline examples for user reflection and feedback to iteratively align an image classifier with the user's evolving intent. Since concept deliberation is inherently subjective and interactive, we painstakingly evaluate the framework through 18 user sessions, each 1.5h long, rather than standard benchmarking datasets. We find that Agile Deliberation achieves 7.5% higher F1 scores than automated decomposition baselines and more than 3% higher than manual deliberation, while participants reported clearer conceptual understanding and lower cognitive effort.