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.
With the advent of crowdsourcing services it has become quite cheap and reasonably effective to get a data set labeled by multiple annotators in a short amount of time. Various methods have been proposed to estimate the consensus labels by correcting for the bias of annotators with different kinds of expertise. Since we do not have control over the quality of the annotators, very often the annotations can be dominated by spammers, defined as annotators who assign labels randomly without actually looking at the instance. Spammers can make the cost of acquiring labels very expensive and can potentially degrade the quality of the final consensus labels. In this paper we propose an empirical Bayesian algorithm called SpEMthat iteratively eliminates the spammers and estimates the consensus labels based only on the good annotators. The algorithm is motivated by defining a spammer score that can be used to rank the annotators. Experiments on simulated and real data show that the proposed approach is better than (or as good as) the earlier approaches in terms of the accuracy and uses a significantly smaller number of annotators. In remote sensing applications "ground-truth" data is often used as the basis for training pattern recognition algorithms to generate thematic maps or to detect objects of interest. In practical situations, experts may visually examine the images and provide a subjective noisy estimate of the truth. Calibrating the reliability and bias of expert labellers is a non-trivial problem. In this paper we discuss some of our recent work on this topic in the context of detecting small volcanoes in Magellan SAR images of Venus. Empirical results (using the Expectation-Maximization procedure) suggest that accounting for subjective noise can be quite significant in terms of quantifying both human and algorithm detection performance. For many supervised learning tasks it may be infeasible (or very expensive) to obtain objective and reliable labels. Instead, we can collect subjective (possibly noisy) labels from multiple experts or annotators. In practice, there is a substantial amount of disagreement among the annotators, and hence it is of great practical interest to address conventional supervised learning problems in this scenario. In this paper we describe a probabilistic approach for supervised learning when we have multiple annotators providing (possibly noisy) labels but no absolute gold standard. The proposed algorithm evaluates the different experts and also gives an estimate of the actual hidden labels. Experimental results indicate that the proposed method is superior to the commonly used majority voting baseline. The use of crowdsourcing platforms like Amazon Mechanical Turk for evaluating the relevance of search results has become an effective strategy that yields results quickly and inexpensively. One approach to ensure quality of worker judgments is to include an initial training period and subsequent sporadic insertion of predefined gold standard data (training data). Workers are notified or rejected when they err on the training data, and trust and quality ratings are adjusted accordingly. In this paper, we assess how this type of dynamic learning environment can affect the workers’ results in a search relevance evaluation task completed on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Specifically, we show how the distribution of training set answers impacts training of workers and aggregate quality of worker results. We conclude that in a relevance categorization task, a uniform distribution of labels across training data labels produces optimal peaks in 1) individual worker precision and 2) majority voting aggregate result accuracy.