From Social to Individuals: A Parsimonious Path of Multi-Level Models for Crowdsourced Preference Aggregation

In crowdsourced preference aggregation, it is often assumed that all the annotators are subject to a common preference or social utility function which generates their comparison behaviors in experiments. However, in reality, annotators are subject to variations due to multi-criteria, abnormal, or a mixture of such behaviors. In this paper, we propose a parsimonious mixed-effects model, which takes into account both the fixed effect that the majority of annotators follows a common linear utility model, and the random effect that some annotators might deviate from the common significantly and exhibit strongly personalized preferences. The key algorithm in this paper establishes a dynamic path from the social utility to individual variations, with different levels of sparsity on personalization. The algorithm is based on the Linearized Bregman Iterations, which leads to easy parallel implementations to meet the need of large-scale data analysis. In this unified framework, three kinds of random utility models are presented, including the basic linear model with $L_2$ loss, Bradley-Terry model, and Thurstone-Mosteller model. The validity of these multi-level models are supported by experiments with both simulated and real-world datasets, which shows that the parsimonious multi-level models exhibit improvements in both interpretability and predictive precision compared with traditional HodgeRank.

[1]  Wotao Yin,et al.  An Iterative Regularization Method for Total Variation-Based Image Restoration , 2005, Multiscale Model. Simul..

[2]  Gerardo Hermosillo,et al.  Supervised learning from multiple experts: whom to trust when everyone lies a bit , 2009, ICML '09.

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

[4]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Identifying and Accounting for Task-Dependent Bias in Crowdsourcing , 2015, HCOMP.

[5]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data , 2002, KDD.

[6]  J. Friedman Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. , 2001 .

[7]  Yu Lu,et al.  Individualized rank aggregation using nuclear norm regularization , 2014, 2015 53rd Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton).

[8]  Guoliang Li,et al.  Truth Inference in Crowdsourcing: Is the Problem Solved? , 2017, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[9]  Jian Li,et al.  CDB: Optimizing Queries with Crowd-Based Selections and Joins , 2017, SIGMOD Conference.

[10]  J. Marsden,et al.  A mathematical introduction to fluid mechanics , 1979 .

[11]  Arun Rajkumar,et al.  A Statistical Convergence Perspective of Algorithms for Rank Aggregation from Pairwise Data , 2014, ICML.

[12]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[13]  Guoliang Li,et al.  Crowdsourced Data Management: A Survey , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[14]  Ngoc Mai Tran,et al.  HodgeRank Is the Limit of Perron Rank , 2012, Math. Oper. Res..

[15]  Aichi Chien,et al.  An L1-based variational model for Retinex theory and its application to medical images , 2011, CVPR 2011.

[16]  Xiaochun Cao,et al.  Parsimonious Mixed-Effects HodgeRank for Crowdsourced Preference Aggregation , 2016, ACM Multimedia.

[17]  Tao Xiang,et al.  Robust Subjective Visual Property Prediction from Crowdsourced Pairwise Labels , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[18]  Milad Shokouhi,et al.  Community-based bayesian aggregation models for crowdsourcing , 2014, WWW.

[19]  Eero P. Simoncelli,et al.  Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[20]  Qingming Huang,et al.  HodgeRank on Random Graphs for Subjective Video Quality Assessment , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[21]  Yuan Yao,et al.  Statistical ranking and combinatorial Hodge theory , 2008, Math. Program..

[22]  S. Osher,et al.  Sparse Recovery via Differential Inclusions , 2014, 1406.7728.

[23]  K. Arrow Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[24]  Stanley Osher,et al.  Enhanced statistical rankings via targeted data collection , 2013, ICML.

[25]  Guoliang Li,et al.  Crowdsourced Data Management: Overview and Challenges , 2017, SIGMOD Conference.

[26]  Reynold Cheng,et al.  On Optimality of Jury Selection in Crowdsourcing , 2015, EDBT.

[27]  Ran Gilad-Bachrach,et al.  DART: Dropouts meet Multiple Additive Regression Trees , 2015, AISTATS.

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

[29]  Beng Chin Ooi,et al.  CDAS: A Crowdsourcing Data Analytics System , 2012, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[30]  Vincent Y. F. Tan,et al.  Adversarial Top- $K$ Ranking , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[31]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  A Data-Driven Approach to Modeling Choice , 2009, NIPS.

[32]  Yuan Yao,et al.  Analysis of Crowdsourced Sampling Strategies for HodgeRank with Sparse Random Graphs , 2015, Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis.

[33]  Jinfeng Yi,et al.  Inferring Users' Preferences from Crowdsourced Pairwise Comparisons: A Matrix Completion Approach , 2013, HCOMP.

[34]  Reynold Cheng,et al.  DOCS: a domain-aware crowdsourcing system using knowledge bases , 2016, VLDB 2016.

[35]  P.-C.-F. Daunou,et al.  Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin , 1803 .

[36]  Zhifeng Bao,et al.  Crowdsourced POI labelling: Location-aware result inference and Task Assignment , 2016, 2016 IEEE 32nd International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE).

[37]  S. Osher,et al.  Statistical ranking using the $l^{1}$-norm on graphs , 2013 .

[38]  Yoram Singer,et al.  An Efficient Boosting Algorithm for Combining Preferences by , 2013 .

[39]  Ralph L. Day,et al.  Position Bias in Paired Product Tests , 1969 .

[40]  Stella Yu,et al.  Angular Embedding: A Robust Quadratic Criterion , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[41]  Asuman E. Ozdaglar,et al.  Flows and Decompositions of Games: Harmonic and Potential Games , 2010, Math. Oper. Res..

[42]  Guoliang Li,et al.  DOCS: Domain-Aware Crowdsourcing System , 2016, Proc. VLDB Endow..

[43]  Philip D. Plowright,et al.  Convexity , 2019, Optimization for Chemical and Biochemical Engineering.

[44]  Devavrat Shah,et al.  Learning Mixed Multinomial Logit Model from Ordinal Data , 2014, NIPS.

[45]  Moni Naor,et al.  Rank aggregation methods for the Web , 2001, WWW '01.

[46]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Convexity, Classification, and Risk Bounds , 2006 .

[47]  Jing Yuan,et al.  Convex Hodge Decomposition and Regularization of Image Flows , 2009, Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision.

[48]  Nathan Srebro,et al.  Fast maximum margin matrix factorization for collaborative prediction , 2005, ICML.

[49]  Ruslan Salakhutdinov,et al.  Bayesian probabilistic matrix factorization using Markov chain Monte Carlo , 2008, ICML '08.

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

[51]  Jianqing Fan,et al.  Variable Selection via Nonconcave Penalized Likelihood and its Oracle Properties , 2001 .

[52]  Aditya G. Parameswaran,et al.  So who won?: dynamic max discovery with the crowd , 2012, SIGMOD Conference.

[53]  Qingming Huang,et al.  Random partial paired comparison for subjective video quality assessment via hodgerank , 2011, ACM Multimedia.

[54]  Gregory N. Hullender,et al.  Learning to rank using gradient descent , 2005, ICML.

[55]  Xiaochun Cao,et al.  False Discovery Rate Control and Statistical Quality Assessment of Annotators in Crowdsourced Ranking , 2016, ICML.