data annotation teams

Abstract: Many ML datasets are constructed by running a detector, heuristic, or model over candidate pools; accepted items become labels. Dataset precision is then governed by true-positive prevalence in each pool via Bayes, not solely by detector quality. Using one instrument and period, we hold a detector-defined event dataset plus an independent official index labeling every detected item as real or phantom. One detector, three pools yield phantom rates 81.7%, 9.0%, and 0.0%. Transferring precision from the two high-rate pools to the low-rate pool predicts 0.955 versus measured 0.183, a +422% error; the Bayes expression predicts all three within 3.3%. The detected response curve is an exact convex combination of a true-event and a phantom component (residual 1.1e-16), with phantoms outnumbering true events 473 to 308, so contamination is a second signal with detector-inherited shape, not additive noise. Contamination direction depends on the estimator: on identical windows one statistic is diluted and another inflated because its denominator is also contaminated. A common normalization turns the estimator into a mean of ratios whose expectation need not exist; on the same 335 events it returns 0.40 where the well-defined estimator returns 0.10.

Abstract: Autonomous research agents are increasingly expected to search the literature, analyze experimental evidence, and generate scientific hypotheses. These capabilities require multi-step evidence grounded reasoning that progressively acquires, integrates, and verifies evidence before reaching a conclusion. Existing multimodal benchmarks, however, largely evaluate final-answer accuracy, leaving open whether predictions are actually supported by traceable scientific evidence. We introduce Sci-MMR, a benchmark for multi-step evidence-grounded scientific reasoning built on structured argument graphs linking scientific claims, citation-grounded knowledge, visual evidence, and supporting regions. Sci-MMR comprises 235 multi-hop reasoning tasks spanning four scientific disciplines, with an average of nine figure panels per task. Evaluating eight frontier multimodal models, we find that answer accuracy consistently exceeds complete-evidence recovery rate by more than 20%, revealing a substantial gap that answer-only evaluation is structurally unable to capture. Through controlled interventions, we identify two fundamental bottlenecks. First, evidence acquisition: models struggle to extract complete structured evidence from scientific figures, accounting for 57.2% of failures. While cropping tools yield modest gains (+4.5 points), providing gold evidence improves accuracy by up to 37.0 points, indicating difficulty in assembling complete multi-region evidence. Second, evidence integration: models struggle to translate available evidence into correct conclusions, accounting for 31.8% of failures, while even with gold evidence the strongest model achieves only 69.1% accuracy on the hardest tasks. These findings indicate that current answer-centric benchmarks substantially overestimate the evidence-grounded reasoning capabilities of multimodal research agents