Crowdsourcing platforms enable companies to propose tasks to a large crowd of users. The workers receive a compensation for their work according to the serious of the tasks they managed to accomplish. The evaluation of the quality of responses obtained from the crowd remains one of the most important problems in this context. Several methods have been proposed to estimate the expertise level of crowd workers. We propose an innovative measure of expertise assuming that we possess a dataset with an objective comparison of the items concerned. Our method is based on the definition of four factors with the theory of belief functions. We compare our method to the Fagin distance on a dataset from a real experiment, where users have to assess the quality of some audio recordings. Then, we propose to fuse both the Fagin distance and our expertise measure.
The identification of experts on crowdsourcing platforms has been the subject of several recent studies. Two different types of approach have been used: the ones where no prior knowledge is available and the ones using questions whose correct answers are known in advance. These questions with their known values are called golden data'' The terminology of such data can be called golden record'', gold data'' or even gold standard'', learning data'' according to the use. . @cite_0 have been working under the no prior knowledge'' hypothesis and managed to calculate the degree of accuracy and precision, assuming that the majority is always right. They defined this degree using the distance of @cite_7 between the response and all the other workers' average answers.
@cite_0 @cite_7
2162815002 2515572806 2003497265 2276146857
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. 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. The creation of golden standard datasets is a costly business. Optimally more than one judgment per document is obtained to ensure a high quality on annotations. In this context, we explore how much annotations from experts differ from each other, how different sets of annotations influence the ranking of systems and if these annotations can be obtained with a crowdsourcing approach. This study is applied to annotations of images with multiple concepts. A subset of the images employed in the latest ImageCLEF Photo Annotation competition was manually annotated by expert annotators and non-experts with Mechanical Turk. The inter-annotator agreement is computed at an image-based and concept-based level using majority vote, accuracy and kappa statistics. Further, the Kendall τ and Kolmogorov-Smirnov correlation test is used to compare the ranking of systems regarding different ground-truths and different evaluation measures in a benchmark scenario. Results show that while the agreement between experts and non-experts varies depending on the measure used, its influence on the ranked lists of the systems is rather small. To sum up, the majority vote applied to generate one annotation set out of several opinions, is able to filter noisy judgments of non-experts to some extent. The resulting annotation set is of comparable quality to the annotations of experts. 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.