CrowdED: Guideline for Optimal Crowdsourcing Experimental Design

ABSTRACT

Crowdsourcing involves the creating of HITs (Human Intelligent Tasks), submitting them to a crowdsourcing platform and providing a monetary reward for each HIT. One of the advantages of using crowdsourcing is that the tasks can be highly parallelized, that is, the work is performed by a high number of workers in a decentralized setting. The design also offers a means to cross-check the accuracy of the answers by assigning each task to more than one person and thus relying on majority consensus as well as reward the workers according to their performance and productivity. Since each worker is paid per task, the costs can significantly increase, irrespective of the overall accuracy of the results. Thus, one important question when designing such crowdsourcing tasks that arise is how many workers to employ and how many tasks to assign to each worker when dealing with large amounts of tasks. That is, the main research questions we aim to answer is: 'Can we a-priori estimate optimal workers and tasks' assignment to obtain maximum accuracy on all tasks'. Thus, we introduce a two-staged statistical guideline, CrowdED, for optimal crowdsourcing experimental design in order to a-priori estimate optimal workers and tasks' assignment to obtain maximum accuracy on all tasks. We describe the algorithm and present preliminary results and discussions. We implement the algorithm in Python and make it openly available on Github, provide a Jupyter Notebook and a R Shiny app for users to re-use, interact and apply in their own crowdsourcing experiments.

References

1. Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, Sherlock G, Spellman P, Stoeckert C, Aach J, Ansorge W, Ball CA, Causton HC, Gaasterland T, Glenisson P, Holstege FC, Kim IF, Markowitz V, Matese JC, Parkinson H, Robinson A, Sarkans U, Schulze-Kremer S, Stewart J, Taylor R, Vilo J, and Vingron M. 2011. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nature Genetics 29 (2011), 365--371. Issue 4.
2. Tanya Barrett, Dennis B. Troup, Stephen E. Wilhite, Pierre Ledoux, Carlos Evangelista, Irene F. Kim, Maxim Tomashevsky, Kimberly A. Marshall, Katherine H. Phillippy, Patti M. Sherman, Rolf N. Muertter, Michelle Holko, Oluwabukunmi Ayanbule, Andrey Yefanov, and Alexandra Soboleva. 2011. NCBI GEO: archive for functional genomics data sets--10 years on. Nucleic Acids Research 39 (2011), 991--995.
3. Good BM, Nanis M, Wu C, and Su AI. 2015. Microtask crowdsourcing for disease mention annotation in PubMed abstracts. Pac Symp Biocomput. (2015), 282--293.
4. C. L. Borgman. 2012. The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63 (2012), 1059--1078. Issue 6.
5. Peng Dai, Christopher H. Lin, Mausam, and Daniel S. Weld. 2013. POMDP-based Control of Workflows for Crowdsourcing. Artif. Intell. 202, 1 (Sept. 2013), 52--85.
6. Yihan Gao and Aditya Parameswaran. 2014. Finish Them!: Pricing Algorithms for Human Computation. Proc. VLDB Endow. 7, 14 (Oct. 2014), 1965--1976.
7. Karan Goel, Shreya Rajpal, and Mausam. 2017. Octopus: A Framework for Cost-Quality-Time Optimization in Crowdsourcing. CoRR abs/1702.03488 (2017). arXiv:1702.03488 http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.03488
8. Jeff Howe. 2006. The Rise of Crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine 14, 6 (06 2006). http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html
9. Barzan Mozafari, Purna Sarkar, Michael Franklin, Michael Jordan, and Samuel Madden. 2014. Scaling up crowd-sourcing to very large datasets: a case for active learning. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 8 (2014), 125--136. Issue 2.
10. Victor S. Sheng, Foster Provost, and Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis. 2008. Get another label improving data quality and data mining using multiple, noisy labelers. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. 614--622.
11. Barrett T, Wilhite SE, Ledoux P, Evangelista C, Kim IF, Tomashevsky M, Marshall KA, Phillippy KH, Sherman PM, Holko M, Yefanov A, Lee H, Zhang N, Robertson CL, Serova N, Davis S, and Soboleva A. 2013. NCBI GEO: archive for functional genomics data sets--update. Nucleic Acids Research 41 (2013), 991--995.
12. U. Ul Hassan, S. ORiain, and E. Curry. 2013. Effects of expertise assessment on the quality of task routing in human computation. Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Social Media for Crowdsourcing and Human Computation (2013).
13. Umair ul Hassan, Amrapali Zaveri, Edgard Marx, Edward Curry, and Jens Lehmann. 2016. ACRyLIQ: Leveraging DBpedia for Adaptive Crowdsourcing in Linked Data Quality Assessment. In Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, Eva Blomqvist, Paolo Ciancarini, Francesco Poggi, and Fabio Vitali (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 681--696.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Life and medical sciences

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

      • User models

      • User studies

    • HCI theory, concepts and models

• Information systems

  • World Wide Web

    • Web applications

      • Crowdsourcing