Reconciling opinions from multiple sources on questions of interest to determine the correct answers is an important problem encountered in collaborative information systems such as Q & A forums and prediction markets. Our current work focuses on a widely applicable variant of the above problem where the opinions and answers are categorical-valued with the set of values possibly varying across questions. Most of the existing techniques are tailored only for binary opinions and cannot be effectively adapted for questions with categorical opinions. To address this, we propose a generic Bayesian framework for opinion reconciliation that can readily incorporate latent and observed attributes of sources and subjects. For the scenario of interest, we derive three specific model instantiations of the general approach (CTM, CTM-OSF, CTM-LSG), which respectively capture the latent source behavior, variations of source behavior across subject groups, and inter-source correlations. Empirical results on real-world datasets point to the relative superiority of the proposed models over existing baselines.
[1]
Shipeng Yu,et al.
Eliminating Spammers and Ranking Annotators for Crowdsourced Labeling Tasks
,
2012,
J. Mach. Learn. Res..
[2]
Charu C. Aggarwal,et al.
Learning from Collective Intelligence in Groups
,
2012,
ArXiv.
[3]
Philip S. Yu,et al.
Truth Discovery with Multiple Conflicting Information Providers on the Web
,
2007,
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.
[4]
Jordan L. Boyd-Graber,et al.
Besting the Quiz Master: Crowdsourcing Incremental Classification Games
,
2012,
EMNLP.
[5]
Jiawei Han,et al.
A Probabilistic Model for Estimating Real-valued Truth from Conflicting Sources
,
2012
.
[6]
Bo Zhao,et al.
A Bayesian Approach to Discovering Truth from Conflicting Sources for Data Integration
,
2012,
Proc. VLDB Endow..
[7]
Serge Abiteboul,et al.
Corroborating information from disagreeing views
,
2010,
WSDM '10.