Timeline for Statistical methods for analyzing results of preference study
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 2, 2018 at 9:28 | vote | accept | Vaering | ||
| Aug 23, 2018 at 15:46 | answer | added | triddle | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 15:06 | comment | added | Vaering | Thanks, I'll check it out! Haven't decided yet, but there are 16 sentences left for testing. I could make more if I wanted but I think it'd be too much for the subjects. As for them, it's going to have to be as many as I can find basically, but maybe 20-30 or so (might have to use e.g. Mechanical Turk if I don't find enough willing friends/family). Yep, all subjects see all comparisons of an exhaustive pairing, so all sentences and all models, but in random order. It's basically the same thing as in this e.g. paper: disneyresearch.com/publication/deep-learning-speech-animation | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 15:00 | comment | added | triddle | Also, it's worth pointing out that human preferences are not transitive, but it sounds like you want a strict (i.e. transitive) ordering of the models. So you're going to have to make an assumption somewhere that might not hold true in reality. | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 14:58 | comment | added | triddle | Can you give a little more detail? How many sentences are there? How many subjects? Do all subjects see all models? Do all subjects see all sentences? Is the pairing between models and sentences and comparisons exhaustive? You're probably going to want something like this: stat.wisc.edu/~larget/Stat998/Fall2015/… | |
| Aug 23, 2018 at 14:30 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 23, 2018 at 15:51 | |||||
| Aug 23, 2018 at 14:27 | history | asked | Vaering | CC BY-SA 4.0 |