skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Efficient Crowd Exploration of Large Networks: The Case of Causal Attribution

Published:01 November 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Accurately and efficiently crowdsourcing complex, open-ended tasks can be difficult, as crowd participants tend to favor short, repetitive "microtasks". We study the crowdsourcing of large networks where the crowd provides the network topology via microtasks. Crowds can explore many types of social and information networks, but we focus on the network of causal attributions, an important network that signifies cause-and-effect relationships. We conduct experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk (AMT) testing how workers can propose and validate individual causal relationships and introduce a method for independent crowd workers to explore large networks. The core of the method, Iterative Pathway Refinement, is a theoretically-principled mechanism for efficient exploration via microtasks. We evaluate the method using synthetic networks and apply it on AMT to extract a large-scale causal attribution network. Worker interactions reveal important characteristics of causal perception and the generated network data can help improve our understanding of causality and causal inference.

References

  1. Lada A Adamic, Rajan M Lukose, Amit R Puniyani, and Bernardo A Huberman. 2001. Search in power-law networks. Physical review E , Vol. 64, 4 (2001), 046135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cecilia R. Aragon and Alison Williams. 2011. Collaborative Creativity: A Complex Systems Model with Distributed Affect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1875--1884. 00033. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. James P Bagrow. 2018. Crowd ideation of supervised learning problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05101 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Albert-László Barabási and Réka Albert. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks. science , Vol. 286, 5439 (1999), 509--512.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Michael S. Bernstein, Greg Little, Robert C. Miller, Björn Hartmann, Mark S. Ackerman, David R. Karger, David Crowell, and Katrina Panovich. 2015. Soylent: a word processor with a crowd inside. Commun. ACM , Vol. 58, 8 (2015), 85--94. 00607. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Kirsten E. Bevelander, Kirsikka Kaipainen, Robert Swain, Simone Dohle, Josh C. Bongard, Paul D. H. Hines, and Brian Wansink. 2014. Crowdsourcing Novel Childhood Predictors of Adult Obesity . PLOS ONE , Vol. 9, 2 (2014), e87756. 00019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Gerd Bohner, Herbert Bless, Norbert Schwarz, and Fritz Strack. 1988. What triggers causal attributions? The impact of valence and subjective probability. European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 18, 4 (1988), 335--345.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Josh C. Bongard, Paul DH Hines, Dylan Conger, Peter Hurd, and Zhenyu Lu. 2013. Crowdsourcing predictors of behavioral outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, Vol. 43, 1 (2013), 176--185. 00024.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Daren C Brabham. 2008. Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An introduction and cases. Convergence, Vol. 14, 1 (2008), 75--90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Ulrik Brandes. 2008. On variants of shortest-path betweenness centrality and their generic computation. Social Networks, Vol. 30, 2 (2008), 136--145.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Roger Brown and Deborah Fish. 1983. The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, Vol. 14, 3 (1983), 237--273.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Olivier Chapelle and Lihong Li. 2011. An Empirical Evaluation of Thompson Sampling. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 24, J. Shawe-Taylor, R. S. Zemel, P. L. Bartlett, F. Pereira, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 2249--2257. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Justin Cheng, Jaime Teevan, Shamsi T Iqbal, and Michael S Bernstein. 2015. Break it down: A comparison of macro-and microtasks. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4061--4064. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Lydia B. Chilton, Greg Little, Darren Edge, Daniel S. Weld, and James A. Landay. 2013. Cascade: Crowdsourcing taxonomy creation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1999--2008. 00117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Alexander Philip Dawid and Allan M Skene. 1979. Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm. Applied statistics (1979), 20--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Pierre-Gilles De Gennes. 1979. Scaling concepts in polymer physics .Cornell university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Djellel Eddine Difallah, Michele Catasta, Gianluca Demartini, Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux. 2015. The Dynamics of Micro-Task Crowdsourcing: The Case of Amazon MTurk. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW '15). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Switzerland, 238--247. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Cynthia Dwork, Ravi Kumar, Moni Naor, and Dandapani Sivakumar. 2001. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 613--622. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Paul Erdös and Alfréd Rényi. 1959. On random graphs, I. Publicationes Mathematicae (Debrecen) , Vol. 6 (1959), 290--297.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Enrique Estellés-Arolas and Fernando González-Ladrón-De-Guevara. 2012. Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information science , Vol. 38, 2 (2012), 189--200. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Roxana Girju, Dan Moldovan, et almbox. 2002. Text Mining for Causal Relations. In FLAIRS Conference. 360--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Clive W J Granger. 1969. Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society (1969), 424--438.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Douglas D Heckathorn. 1997. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social problems , Vol. 44, 2 (1997), 174--199.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Carlos P Herrero. 2005. Self-avoiding walks on scale-free networks. Physical Review E , Vol. 71, 1 (2005), 016103.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Steven M Hill, Laura M Heiser, Thomas Cokelaer, Michael Unger, Nicole K Nesser, Daniel E Carlin, Yang Zhang, Artem Sokolov, Evan O Paull, Chris K Wong, et almbox. 2016. Inferring causal molecular networks: empirical assessment through a community-based effort. Nature Methods , Vol. 13, 4 (2016), 310.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Denis J Hilton. 1990. Conversational processes and causal explanation. Psychological Bulletin , Vol. 107, 1 (1990), 65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Jeff Howe. 2006. The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired magazine , Vol. 14, 6 (2006), 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. David Hume. 2012. A Treatise of Human Nature .Courier Corporation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Jason T Jacques and Per Ola Kristensson. 2013. Crowdsourcing a HIT: measuring workers' pre-task interactions on microtask markets. In First AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. RB Joynson. 1971. Michotte's Experimental Methods. British Journal of Psychology , Vol. 62, 3 (1971), 293--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Immanuel Kant and Paul Guyer. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason .Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. David R Karger, Sewoong Oh, and Devavrat Shah. 2011. Iterative learning for reliable crowdsourcing systems. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 1953--1961. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Frank C Keil. 2006. Explanation and understanding. Annu. Rev. Psychol. , Vol. 57 (2006), 227--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Harold H Kelley. 1967. Attribution Theory in Social Psychology.. In Nebraska symposium on motivation. University of Nebraska Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Hyun Duk Kim, Malu Castellanos, Meichun Hsu, ChengXiang Zhai, Thomas Rietz, and Daniel Diermeier. 2013. Mining Causal Topics in Text Data: Iterative Topic Modeling with Time Series Feedback. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Conference on information & knowledge management. ACM, 885--890. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Aniket Kittur. 2010. Crowdsourcing, collaboration and creativity. XRDS: crossroads, the ACM magazine for students , Vol. 17, 2 (2010), 22--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Aniket Kittur, Ed H Chi, and Bongwon Suh. 2008. Crowdsourcing user studies with Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 453--456. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Aniket Kittur, Boris Smus, Susheel Khamkar, and Robert E Kraut. 2011. Crowdforge: Crowdsourcing complex work. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Jon M Kleinberg. 2000. Navigation in a small world. Nature , Vol. 406, 6798 (2000), 845.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Justin Kruger, Ulle Endriss, Raquel Fernández, and Ciyang Qing. 2014. Axiomatic analysis of aggregation methods for collective annotation. In Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems . International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1185--1192. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Bin Li, Neal Madras, and Alan D Sokal. 1995. Critical exponents, hyperscaling, and universal amplitude ratios for two-and three-dimensional self-avoiding walks. Journal of Statistical Physics , Vol. 80, 3--4 (1995), 661--754.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Qi Li, Fenglong Ma, Jing Gao, Lu Su, and Christopher J. Quinn. 2016. Crowdsourcing High Quality Labels with a Tight Budget. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 237--246. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Greg Little, Lydia B Chilton, Max Goldman, and Robert C Miller. 2010. Turkit: human computation algorithms on mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, 57--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Daniel Marbach, James C Costello, Robert Küffner, Nicole M Vega, Robert J Prill, Diogo M Camacho, Kyle R Allison, Andrej Aderhold, Richard Bonneau, Yukun Chen, et almbox. 2012. Wisdom of crowds for robust gene network inference. Nature methods , Vol. 9, 8 (2012), 796.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas C. McAndrew, Elizaveta Guseva, and James P. Bagrow. 2017. Reply & Supply: Efficient crowdsourcing when workers do more than answer questions. PLOS ONE , Vol. 12, 8 (2017), e69829. . 2001. A guide to first-passage processes .Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Martin Rolfs, Michael Dambacher, and Patrick Cavanagh. 2013. Visual Adaptation of the Perception of Causality. Current Biology , Vol. 23, 3 (2013), 250--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Donald B Rubin. 2011. Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Matthew J Salganik and Karen EC Levy. 2015. Wiki surveys: Open and quantifiable social data collection. PLOS ONE , Vol. 10, 5 (2015), e0123483.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Brian J Scholl and Patrice D Tremoulet. 2000. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in cognitive sciences , Vol. 4, 8 (2000), 299--309.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Pao Siangliulue, Kenneth C Arnold, Krzysztof Z Gajos, and Steven P Dow. 2015. Toward collaborative ideation at scale: Leveraging ideas from others to generate more creative and diverse ideas. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. ACM, 937--945. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Rion Snow, Brendan O'Connor, Daniel Jurafsky, and Andrew Y Ng. 2008. Cheap and fast--but is it good?: Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 254--263. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Shelley E Taylor and Susan T Fiske. 1975. Point of View and Perceptions of Causality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 32, 3 (1975), 439.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Jaime Teevan, Shamsi T. Iqbal, and Curtis von Veh. 2016. Supporting Collaborative Writing with Microtasks. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2657--2668. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Jeffrey Travers and Stanley Milgram. 1967. The small world problem. Phychology Today , Vol. 1, 1 (1967), 61--67.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. M. D. Wagy, J. C. Bongard, J. P. Bagrow, and P. D. H. Hines. 2017. Crowdsourcing Predictors of Residential Electric Energy Usage. IEEE Systems Journal , Vol. PP, 99 (2017), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Sebastian Wernicke and Florian Rasche. 2006. FANMOD: a tool for fast network motif detection. Bioinformatics , Vol. 22, 9 (2006), 1152--1153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Shi-Jie Yang. 2005. Exploring complex networks by walking on them. Phys. Rev. E , Vol. 71 (Jan 2005), 016107. Issue 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Efficient Crowd Exploration of Large Networks: The Case of Causal Attribution

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
            Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 2, Issue CSCW
            November 2018
            4104 pages
            EISSN:2573-0142
            DOI:10.1145/3290265
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2018 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 1 November 2018
            Published in pacmhci Volume 2, Issue CSCW

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader