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
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.