Combining crowd consensus and user trustworthiness for managing collective tasks

In this paper, we present the LiquidCrowd methodological approach based on consensus and trustworthiness techniques for managing the execution of collective tasks. By collective task, we refer to a task in which the result depends on the consensus (i.e., degree of agreement) reached by the group of workers involved in the task execution. The more workers agree on a certain task answer, the more this answer is valid/accepted as a committed result for the task. In the paper, we provide crowdsourcing techniques for managing collective tasks based on the notion of supermajority to verify an expected degree of consensus/agreement required for considering a task as successfully completed. Moreover, we define trustworthiness techniques to measure the worker reliability/expertise in collective task execution in order to tailor the composition of a group by involving workers that are more able to express a sharable answer where needed. A case study of a collective task related to web-resource labeling is illustrated and evaluation results of the LiquidCrowd methodological approach are finally discussed. Display Omitted Definition of the LiquidCrowd methodological approach for managing collective tasks through crowdsourcing techniques.Combined use of consensus and trustworthiness techniques for task and worker management.Analysis of a case study about collective web-resource labeling.

[1]  Michael S. Bernstein,et al.  Crowds in two seconds: enabling realtime crowd-powered interfaces , 2011, UIST.

[2]  Kwong-Sak Leung,et al.  A Survey of Crowdsourcing Systems , 2011, 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust and 2011 IEEE Third Int'l Conference on Social Computing.

[3]  Aniket Kittur,et al.  Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk , 2008, CHI.

[4]  Roberto Di Pietro,et al.  AntiCheetah: Trustworthy computing in an outsourced (cheating) environment , 2015, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[5]  Matthew Lease,et al.  SQUARE: A Benchmark for Research on Computing Crowd Consensus , 2013, HCOMP.

[6]  Aditya G. Parameswaran,et al.  Evaluating the crowd with confidence , 2013, KDD.

[7]  Lorrie Faith Cranor,et al.  Are your participants gaming the system?: screening mechanical turk workers , 2010, CHI.

[8]  L. Genta,et al.  CONSENSUS-BASED CROWDSOURCING: TECHNIQUES AND APPLICATIONS , 2015 .

[9]  Pietro Perona,et al.  Online crowdsourcing: Rating annotators and obtaining cost-effective labels , 2010, 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition - Workshops.

[10]  Tim Kraska,et al.  CrowdDB: answering queries with crowdsourcing , 2011, SIGMOD '11.

[11]  Javier R. Movellan,et al.  Whose Vote Should Count More: Optimal Integration of Labels from Labelers of Unknown Expertise , 2009, NIPS.

[12]  Gianluca Demartini,et al.  ZenCrowd: leveraging probabilistic reasoning and crowdsourcing techniques for large-scale entity linking , 2012, WWW.

[13]  A. McGann The Tyranny of the Super-Majority: How Majority Rule Protects Minorities , 2002 .

[14]  Brian L. Sullivan,et al.  eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences , 2009 .

[15]  Michael Rosemann,et al.  Crowdsourcing Information Systems - A Systems Theory Perspective , 2011 .

[16]  Grace Hui Yang,et al.  Collecting high quality overlapping labels at low cost , 2010, SIGIR.

[17]  Matthew Reid,et al.  Quality control mechanisms for crowdsourcing: peer review, arbitration, & expertise at familysearch indexing , 2013, CSCW '13.

[18]  Gerardo Hermosillo,et al.  Learning From Crowds , 2010, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[19]  Lukas Biewald,et al.  Programmatic Gold: Targeted and Scalable Quality Assurance in Crowdsourcing , 2011, Human Computation.

[20]  A. P. Dawid,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Observer Error‐Rates Using the EM Algorithm , 1979 .

[21]  Efraim Turban,et al.  What can crowdsourcing do for decision support? , 2014, Decis. Support Syst..

[22]  Denny Vrandecic,et al.  Crowdsourcing tasks in linked data management , 2011 .

[23]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Quality management on Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2010, HCOMP '10.

[24]  Alessandro Bozzon,et al.  Reactive crowdsourcing , 2013, WWW.

[25]  Scott R. Klemmer,et al.  Shepherding the crowd: managing and providing feedback to crowd workers , 2011, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[26]  Kyle Chard,et al.  eScience in the Social Cloud , 2013, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[27]  Pietro Perona,et al.  The Multidimensional Wisdom of Crowds , 2010, NIPS.

[28]  Schahram Dustdar,et al.  Incentives and rewarding in social computing , 2013, CACM.

[29]  John Le,et al.  Ensuring quality in crowdsourced search relevance evaluation: The effects of training question distribution , 2010 .

[30]  Matthew Lease,et al.  Improving Consensus Accuracy via Z-Score and Weighted Voting , 2011, Human Computation.

[31]  AnHai Doan,et al.  Matching Schemas in Online Communities: A Web 2.0 Approach , 2008, 2008 IEEE 24th International Conference on Data Engineering.

[32]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  Cheap and Fast – But is it Good? Evaluating Non-Expert Annotations for Natural Language Tasks , 2008, EMNLP.

[33]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Question Selection for Crowd Entity Resolution , 2013, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[34]  Alon Y. Halevy,et al.  Crowdsourcing systems on the World-Wide Web , 2011, Commun. ACM.

[35]  Amit P. Sheth,et al.  Comparative trust management with applications: Bayesian approaches emphasis , 2014, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..