Visual question answering (VQA) systems are emerging from a desire to empower users to ask any natural language question about visual content and receive a valid answer in response. However, close examination of the VQA problem reveals an unavoidable, entangled problem that multiple humans may or may not always agree on a single answer to a visual question. We train a model to automatically predict from a visual question whether a crowd would agree on a single answer. We then propose how to exploit this system in a novel application to efficiently allocate human effort to collect answers to visual questions. Specifically, we propose a crowdsourcing system that automatically solicits fewer human responses when answer agreement is expected and more human responses when answer disagreement is expected. Our system improves upon existing crowdsourcing systems, typically eliminating at least 20 of human effort with no loss to the information collected from the crowd.
* Analyses of Crowd Disagreement More broadly, our work relates to efforts to account for crowd disagreement. For example, researchers have suggested ways to resolve crowd disagreement due to task difficulty @cite_23 and ambiguity specificity @cite_10 @cite_11 . Some methods demonstrate which workers to trust most when aggregating multiple responses into a final, single response @cite_19 @cite_23 . Other methods leverage context to automatically disambiguate which of multiple outcomes is the desired outcome @cite_11 . Unlike prior work, we focus on the task of visual question answering. Moreover, while prior work focuses on resolving specific sources of crowd disagreement (e.g., task difficulty or ambiguity), we instead propose a single, integrated system that jointly detects various sources of crowd disagreement that arise for visual question answering. The advantage of this approach is to separate easy to answer" instances from all instances that would require additional effort to resolve the disagreement; e.g., collect multiple answers for ambiguous and subjective tasks or apply an aggregation scheme to produce a single answer from multiple answers when crowd workers are unreliable.
@cite_19 @cite_10 @cite_23 @cite_11
2141649520 2276146857 2610525153 2124994029 2886443245 2279346661 2408493841 2163522723 2953080935 2162815002 2963573141 1949110650 1570705485 2493870798 2072232009 1601808502 2901662176 2140890285 2515572806 2554839354
This paper addresses the problem of extracting accurate labels from crowdsourced datasets, a key challenge in crowdsourcing. Prior work has focused on modeling the reliability of individual workers, for instance, by way of confusion matrices, and using these latent traits to estimate the true labels more accurately. However, this strategy becomes ineffective when there are too few labels per worker to reliably estimate their quality. To mitigate this issue, we propose a novel community-based Bayesian label aggregation model, CommunityBCC, which assumes that crowd workers conform to a few different types, where each type represents a group of workers with similar confusion matrices. We assume that each worker belongs to a certain community, where the worker's confusion matrix is similar to (a perturbation of) the community's confusion matrix. Our model can then learn a set of key latent features: (i) the confusion matrix of each community, (ii) the community membership of each user, and (iii) the aggregated label of each item. We compare the performance of our model against established aggregation methods on a number of large-scale, real-world crowdsourcing datasets. Our experimental results show that our CommunityBCC model consistently outperforms state-of-the-art label aggregation methods, requiring, on average, 50 less data to pass the 90 accuracy mark. Crowdsourcing has attracted significant attention from the database community in recent years and several crowdsourced databases have been proposed to incorporate human power into traditional database systems. One big issue in crowdsourcing is to achieve high quality because workers may return incorrect answers. A typical solution to address this problem is to assign each question to multiple workers and combine workers’ answers to generate the final result. One big challenge arising in this strategy is to infer worker’s quality. Existing methods usually assume each worker has a fixed quality and compute the quality using qualification tests or historical performance. However these methods cannot accurately estimate a worker’s quality. To address this problem, we propose a worker model and devise an incremental inference strategy to accurately compute the workers’ quality. We also propose a question model and develop two efficient strategies to combine the worker’s model to compute the question’s result. We implement our method and compare with existing inference approaches on real crowdsourcing platforms using real-world datasets, and the experiments indicate that our method achieves high accuracy and outperforms existing approaches. Visual question answering systems empower users to ask any question about any image and receive a valid answer. However, existing systems do not yet account for the fact that a visual question can lead to a single answer or multiple different answers. While a crowd often agrees, disagreements do arise for many reasons including that visual questions are ambiguous, subjective, or difficult. We propose a model, CrowdVerge, for automatically predicting from a visual question whether a crowd would agree on one answer. We then propose how to exploit these predictions in a novel application to efficiently collect all valid answers to visual questions. Specifically, we solicit fewer human responses when answer agreement is expected and more human responses otherwise. Experiments on 121,811 visual questions asked by sighted and blind people show that, compared to existing crowdsourcing systems, our system captures the same answer diversity with typically 14-23 less crowd involvement. Detecting and correcting low quality submissions in crowdsourcing tasks is an important challenge. Prior work has primarily focused on worker outcomes or reputation, using approaches such as agreement across workers or with a gold standard to evaluate quality. We propose an alternative and complementary technique that focuses on the way workers work rather than the products they produce. Our technique captures behavioral traces from online crowd workers and uses them to predict outcome measures such quality, errors, and the likelihood of cheating. We evaluate the effectiveness of the approach across three contexts including classification, generation, and comprehension tasks. The results indicate that we can build predictive models of task performance based on behavioral traces alone, and that these models generalize to related tasks. Finally, we discuss limitations and extensions of the approach. With multiple crowd gatherings of millions of people every year in events ranging from pilgrimages to protests, concerts to marathons, and festivals to funerals; visual crowd analysis is emerging as a new frontier in computer vision. In particular, counting in highly dense crowds is a challenging problem with far-reaching applicability in crowd safety and management, as well as gauging political significance of protests and demonstrations. In this paper, we propose a novel approach that simultaneously solves the problems of counting, density map estimation and localization of people in a given dense crowd image. Our formulation is based on an important observation that the three problems are inherently related to each other making the loss function for optimizing a deep CNN decomposable. Since localization requires high-quality images and annotations, we introduce UCF-QNRF dataset that overcomes the shortcomings of previous datasets, and contains 1.25 million humans manually marked with dot annotations. Finally, we present evaluation measures and comparison with recent deep CNNs, including those developed specifically for crowd counting. Our approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art on the new dataset, which is the most challenging dataset with the largest number of crowd annotations in the most diverse set of scenes. Microtask crowdsourcing has enabled dataset advances in social science and machine learning, but existing crowdsourcing schemes are too expensive to scale up with the expanding volume of data. To scale and widen the applicability of crowdsourcing, we present a technique that produces extremely rapid judgments for binary and categorical labels. Rather than punishing all errors, which causes workers to proceed slowly and deliberately, our technique speeds up workers' judgments to the point where errors are acceptable and even expected. We demonstrate that it is possible to rectify these errors by randomizing task order and modeling response latency. We evaluate our technique on a breadth of common labeling tasks such as image verification, word similarity, sentiment analysis and topic classification. Where prior work typically achieves a 0.25x to 1x speedup over fixed majority vote, our approach often achieves an order of magnitude (10x) speedup. We leverage crowd wisdom for multiple-choice question answering, and employ lightweight machine learning techniques to improve the aggregation accuracy of crowdsourced answers to these questions. In order to develop more effective aggregation methods and evaluate them empirically, we developed and deployed a crowdsourced system for playing the "Who wants to be a millionaire?" quiz show. Analyzing our data (which consist of more than 200,000 answers), we find that by just going with the most selected answer in the aggregation, we can answer over 90 of the questions correctly, but the success rate of this technique plunges to 60 for the later harder questions in the quiz show. To improve the success rates of these later harder questions, we investigate novel weighted aggregation schemes for aggregating the answers obtained from the crowd. By using weights optimized for reliability of participants (derived from the participants' confidence), we show that we can pull up the accuracy rate for the harder questions by 15 , and to overall 95 average accuracy. Our results provide a good case for the benefits of applying machine learning techniques for building more accurate crowdsourced question answering systems. Crowdsourcing systems, in which numerous tasks are electronically distributed to numerous “information pieceworkers,” have emerged as an effective paradigm for human-powered solving of large-scale problems in domains such as image classification, data entry, optical character recognition, recommendation, and proofreading. Because these low-paid workers can be unreliable, nearly all such systems must devise schemes to increase confidence in their answers, typically by assigning each task multiple times and combining the answers in an appropriate manner, e.g., majority voting. In this paper, we consider a general model of such crowdsourcing tasks and pose the problem of minimizing the total price i.e., number of task assignments that must be paid to achieve a target overall reliability. We give a new algorithm for deciding which tasks to assign to which workers and for inferring correct answers from the workers' answers. We show that our algorithm, inspired by belief propagation and low-rank matrix approximation, significantly outperforms majority voting and, in fact, is optimal through comparison to an oracle that knows the reliability of every worker. Further, we compare our approach with a more general class of algorithms that can dynamically assign tasks. By adaptively deciding which questions to ask to the next set of arriving workers, one might hope to reduce uncertainty more efficiently. We show that, perhaps surprisingly, the minimum price necessary to achieve a target reliability scales in the same manner under both adaptive and nonadaptive scenarios. Hence, our nonadaptive approach is order optimal under both scenarios. This strongly relies on the fact that workers are fleeting and cannot be exploited. Therefore, architecturally, our results suggest that building a reliable worker-reputation system is essential to fully harnessing the potential of adaptive designs. To ensure quality results from crowdsourced tasks, requesters often aggregate worker responses and use one of a plethora of strategies to infer the correct answer from the set of noisy responses. However, all current models assume prior knowledge of all possible outcomes of the task. While not an unreasonable assumption for tasks that can be posited as multiple-choice questions (e.g. n-ary classification), we observe that many tasks do not naturally fit this paradigm, but instead demand a free-response formulation where the outcome space is of infinite size (e.g. audio transcription). We model such tasks with a novel probabilistic graphical model, and design and implement LazySusan, a decision-theoretic controller that dynamically requests responses as necessary in order to infer answers to these tasks. We also design an EM algorithm to jointly learn the parameters of our model while inferring the correct answers to multiple tasks at a time. Live experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk demonstrate the superiority of LazySusan at solving SAT Math questions, eliminating 83.2 of the error and achieving greater net utility compared to the state-ofthe-art strategy, majority-voting. We also show in live experiments that our EM algorithm outperforms majority-voting on a visualization task that we design. Crowdsourcing has recently become popular among machine learning researchers and social scientists as an effective way to collect large-scale experimental data from distributed workers. To extract useful information from the cheap but potentially unreliable answers to tasks, a key problem is to identify reliable workers as well as unambiguous tasks. Although for objective tasks that have one correct answer per task, previous works can estimate worker reliability and task clarity based on the single gold standard assumption, for tasks that are subjective and accept multiple reasonable answers that workers may be grouped into, a phenomenon called schools of thought, existing models cannot be trivially applied. In this work, we present a statistical model to estimate worker reliability and task clarity without resorting to the single gold standard assumption. This is instantiated by explicitly characterizing the grouping behavior to form schools of thought with a rank-1 factorization of a worker-task groupsize matrix. Instead of performing an intermediate inference step, which can be expensive and unstable, we present an algorithm to analytically compute the sizes of different groups. We perform extensive empirical studies on real data collected from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Our method discovers the schools of thought, shows reasonable estimation of worker reliability and task clarity, and is robust to hyperparameter changes. Furthermore, our estimated worker reliability can be used to improve the gold standard prediction for objective tasks. We propose the ambiguity problem for the foreground object segmentation task and motivate the importance of estimating and accounting for this ambiguity when designing vision systems. Specifically, we distinguish between images which lead multiple annotators to segment different foreground objects (ambiguous) versus minor inter-annotator differences of the same object. Taking images from eight widely used datasets, we crowdsource labeling the images as “ambiguous” or “not ambiguous” to segment in order to construct a new dataset we call STATIC. Using STATIC, we develop a system that automatically predicts which images are ambiguous. Experiments demonstrate the advantage of our prediction system over existing saliency-based methods on images from vision benchmarks and images taken by blind people who are trying to recognize objects in their environment. Finally, we introduce a crowdsourcing system to achieve cost savings for collecting the diversity of all valid “ground truth” foreground object segmentations by collecting extra segmentations only when ambiguity is expected. Experiments show our system eliminates up to 47 of human effort compared to existing crowdsourcing methods with no loss in capturing the diversity of ground truths. We consider the following distributed consensus problem: Each node in a complete communication network of size n initially holds an opinion, which is chosen arbitrarily from a finite set Σ. The system must converge toward a consensus state in which all, or almost all nodes, hold the same opinion. Moreover, this opinion should be valid, i.e., it should be one among those initially present in the system. This condition should be met even in the presence of a malicious adversary who can modify the opinions of a bounded subset of nodes, adaptively chosen in every round. We consider the 3-majority dynamics: At every round, every node pulls the opinion from three random neighbors and sets his new opinion to the majority one (ties are broken arbitrarily). Let k be the number of valid opinions. We show that, if k ≤ nα, where α is a suitable positive constant, the 3-majority dynamics converges in time polynomial in k and log n with high probability even in the presence of an adversary who can affect up to o([EQUATION]) nodes at each round. Previously, the convergence of the 3-majority protocol was known for |Σ| = 2 only, with an argument that is robust to adversarial errors. On the other hand, no anonymous, uniform-gossip protocol that is robust to adversarial errors was known for |Σ| > 2. Crowdsourcing has become an eective and popular tool for human-powered computation to label large datasets. Since the workers can be unreliable, it is common in crowdsourcing to assign multiple workers to one task, and to aggregate the labels in order to obtain results of high quality. In this paper, we provide nite-sample exponential bounds on the error rate (in probability and in expectation) of general aggregation rules under the Dawid-Skene crowdsourcing model. The bounds are derived for multi-class labeling, and can be used to analyze many aggregation methods, including majority voting, weighted majority voting and the oracle Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) rule. We show that the oracle MAP rule approximately optimizes our upper bound on the mean error rate of weighted majority voting in certain setting. We propose an iterative weighted majority voting (IWMV) method that optimizes the error rate bound and approximates the oracle MAP rule. Its one step version has a provable theoretical guarantee on the error rate. The IWMV method is intuitive and computationally simple. Experimental results on simulated and real data show that IWMV performs at least on par with the state-of-the-art methods, and it has a much lower computational cost (around one hundred times faster) than the state-of-the-art methods. In this paper, we consider the classical contention resolution problem in which an unknown subset of n possible nodes are activated and connected to a shared channel. The problem is solved in the first round that an active node transmits alone (thus breaking symmetry). Contention resolution has been an active research topic for over four decades. Accordingly, tight upper and lower bounds are known for most major model assumptions. There remains, however, an important case that is unresolved: contention resolution with multiple channels and collision detection. (Tight bounds are known for contention resolution with multiple channels, and contention resolution with collision detection, but not for the combination of both assumptions.) Recent work proved the first non-trivial lower bound for randomized solutions to this problem in this setting. The optimality of this lower bound was left an open question. In this paper, we answer this open question by describing and analyzing new contention resolution algorithms that match, or come within a log factor of matching, this bound for all relevant parameters. By doing so, we help advance our understanding of an important longstanding problem. Of equal importance, our solutions introduce a novel new technique in which we leverage a distributed structure we call coalescing cohorts to simulate a well-known parallel search strategy from the structured PRAM CREW model in our unstructured distributed model. We conjecture that this approach is relevant to many problems in the increasingly important setting of distributed computation using multiple shared channels. We propose to leverage multiple sources of information to compute an estimate of the number of individuals present in an extremely dense crowd visible in a single image. Due to problems including perspective, occlusion, clutter, and few pixels per person, counting by human detection in such images is almost impossible. Instead, our approach relies on multiple sources such as low confidence head detections, repetition of texture elements (using SIFT), and frequency-domain analysis to estimate counts, along with confidence associated with observing individuals, in an image region. Secondly, we employ a global consistency constraint on counts using Markov Random Field. This caters for disparity in counts in local neighborhoods and across scales. We tested our approach on a new dataset of fifty crowd images containing 64K annotated humans, with the head counts ranging from 94 to 4543. This is in stark contrast to datasets used for existing methods which contain not more than tens of individuals. We experimentally demonstrate the efficacy and reliability of the proposed approach by quantifying the counting performance. Crowdsourcing systems allocate tasks to a group of workers over the Internet, which have become an effective paradigm for human-powered problem solving such as image classification, optical character recognition and proofreading. In this paper, we focus on incentivizing crowd workers to label a set of binary tasks under strict budget constraint. We properly profile the tasks' difficulty levels and workers' quality in crowdsourcing systems, where the collected labels are aggregated with sequential Bayesian approach. To stimulate workers to undertake crowd labeling tasks, the interaction between workers and the platform is modeled as a reverse auction. We reveal that the platform utility maximization could be intractable, for which an incentive mechanism that determines the winning bid and payments with polynomial-time computation complexity is developed. Moreover, we theoretically prove that our mechanism is truthful, individually rational and budget feasible. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate that our mechanism utilizes budget efficiently to achieve high platform utility with polynomial computation complexity. To help their users to discover important items at a particular time, major websites like Twitter, Yelp, TripAdvisor or NYTimes provide Top-K recommendations (e.g., 10 Trending Topics, Top 5 Hotels in Paris or 10 Most Viewed News Stories), which rely on crowdsourced popularity signals to select the items. However, different sections of a crowd may have different preferences, and there is a large silent majority who do not explicitly express their opinion. Also, the crowd often consists of actors like bots, spammers, or people running orchestrated campaigns. Recommendation algorithms today largely do not consider such nuances, hence are vulnerable to strategic manipulation by small but hyper-active user groups. To fairly aggregate the preferences of all users while recommending top-K items, we borrow ideas from prior research on social choice theory, and identify a voting mechanism called Single Transferable Vote (STV) as having many of the fairness properties we desire in top-K item (s)elections. We develop an innovative mechanism to attribute preferences of silent majority which also make STV completely operational. We show the generalizability of our approach by implementing it on two different real-world datasets. Through extensive experimentation and comparison with state-of-the-art techniques, we show that our proposed approach provides maximum user satisfaction, and cuts down drastically on items disliked by most but hyper-actively promoted by a few users. Crowdsourcing systems, in which tasks are electronically distributed to numerous "information piece-workers", have emerged as an effective paradigm for human-powered solving of large scale problems in domains such as image classification, data entry, optical character recognition, recommendation, and proofreading. Because these low-paid workers can be unreliable, nearly all crowdsourcers must devise schemes to increase confidence in their answers, typically by assigning each task multiple times and combining the answers in some way such as majority voting. In this paper, we consider a general model of such crowdsourcing tasks, and pose the problem of minimizing the total price (i.e., number of task assignments) that must be paid to achieve a target overall reliability. We give a new algorithm for deciding which tasks to assign to which workers and for inferring correct answers from the workers' answers. We show that our algorithm significantly outperforms majority voting and, in fact, is asymptotically optimal through comparison to an oracle that knows the reliability of every worker. Crowdsourcing platforms enable to propose simple human intelligence tasks to a large number of participants who realise these tasks. The workers often receive a small amount of money or the platforms include some other incentive mechanisms, for example they can increase the workers reputation score, if they complete the tasks correctly. We address the problem of identifying experts among participants, that is, workers, who tend to answer the questions correctly. Knowing who are the reliable workers could improve the quality of knowledge one can extract from responses. As opposed to other works in the literature, we assume that participants can give partial or incomplete responses, in case they are not sure that their answers are correct. We model such partial or incomplete responses with the help of belief functions, and we derive a measure that characterizes the expertise level of each participant. This measure is based on precise and exactitude degrees that represent two parts of the expertise level. The precision degree reflects the reliability level of the participants and the exactitude degree reflects the knowledge level of the participants. We also analyze our model through simulation and demonstrate that our richer model can lead to more reliable identification of experts. Crowdsourcing systems, in which numerous tasks are electronically distributed to numerous “information pieceworkers”, have emerged as an effective paradigm for human-powered solving of large scale problems in domains such as image classification, data entry, optical character recognition, recommendation, and proofreading. Because these low-paid workers can be unreliable, nearly all crowdsourcers must devise schemes to increase confidence in their answers, typically by assigning each task multiple times and combining the answers in some way such as majority voting. In this paper, we consider a model of such crowdsourcing tasks and pose the problem of minimizing the total price (i.e., number of task assignments) that must be paid to achieve a target overall reliability. We give a new algorithm for deciding which tasks to assign to which workers and for inferring correct answers from the workers' answers. We show that our algorithm, based on low-rank matrix approximation, significantly outperforms majority voting and, in fact, is order-optimal through comparison to an oracle that knows the reliability of every worker.