-
Hate Speech Detection with Generalizable Target-aware Fairness
Authors:
Tong Chen,
Danny Wang,
Xurong Liang,
Marten Risius,
Gianluca Demartini,
Hongzhi Yin
Abstract:
To counter the side effect brought by the proliferation of social media platforms, hate speech detection (HSD) plays a vital role in halting the dissemination of toxic online posts at an early stage. However, given the ubiquitous topical communities on social media, a trained HSD classifier easily becomes biased towards specific targeted groups (e.g., female and black people), where a high rate of…
▽ More
To counter the side effect brought by the proliferation of social media platforms, hate speech detection (HSD) plays a vital role in halting the dissemination of toxic online posts at an early stage. However, given the ubiquitous topical communities on social media, a trained HSD classifier easily becomes biased towards specific targeted groups (e.g., female and black people), where a high rate of false positive/negative results can significantly impair public trust in the fairness of content moderation mechanisms, and eventually harm the diversity of online society. Although existing fairness-aware HSD methods can smooth out some discrepancies across targeted groups, they are mostly specific to a narrow selection of targets that are assumed to be known and fixed. This inevitably prevents those methods from generalizing to real-world use cases where new targeted groups constantly emerge over time. To tackle this defect, we propose Generalizable target-aware Fairness (GetFair), a new method for fairly classifying each post that contains diverse and even unseen targets during inference. To remove the HSD classifier's spurious dependence on target-related features, GetFair trains a series of filter functions in an adversarial pipeline, so as to deceive the discriminator that recovers the targeted group from filtered post embeddings. To maintain scalability and generalizability, we innovatively parameterize all filter functions via a hypernetwork that is regularized by the semantic affinity among targets. Taking a target's pretrained word embedding as input, the hypernetwork generates the weights used by each target-specific filter on-the-fly without storing dedicated filter parameters. Finally, comparative experiments on two HSD datasets have shown advantageous performance of GetFair on out-of-sample targets.
△ Less
Submitted 11 June, 2024; v1 submitted 28 May, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Estimating Gender Completeness in Wikipedia
Authors:
Hrishikesh Patel,
Tianwa Chen,
Ivano Bongiovanni,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
Gender imbalance in Wikipedia content is a known challenge which the editor community is actively addressing. The aim of this paper is to provide the Wikipedia community with instruments to estimate the magnitude of the problem for different entity types (also known as classes) in Wikipedia. To this end, we apply class completeness estimation methods based on the gender attribute. Our results show…
▽ More
Gender imbalance in Wikipedia content is a known challenge which the editor community is actively addressing. The aim of this paper is to provide the Wikipedia community with instruments to estimate the magnitude of the problem for different entity types (also known as classes) in Wikipedia. To this end, we apply class completeness estimation methods based on the gender attribute. Our results show not only which gender for different sub-classes of Person is more prevalent in Wikipedia, but also an idea of how complete the coverage is for difference genders and sub-classes of Person.
△ Less
Submitted 17 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Identification of Regulatory Requirements Relevant to Business Processes: A Comparative Study on Generative AI, Embedding-based Ranking, Crowd and Expert-driven Methods
Authors:
Catherine Sai,
Shazia Sadiq,
Lei Han,
Gianluca Demartini,
Stefanie Rinderle-Ma
Abstract:
Organizations face the challenge of ensuring compliance with an increasing amount of requirements from various regulatory documents. Which requirements are relevant depends on aspects such as the geographic location of the organization, its domain, size, and business processes. Considering these contextual factors, as a first step, relevant documents (e.g., laws, regulations, directives, policies)…
▽ More
Organizations face the challenge of ensuring compliance with an increasing amount of requirements from various regulatory documents. Which requirements are relevant depends on aspects such as the geographic location of the organization, its domain, size, and business processes. Considering these contextual factors, as a first step, relevant documents (e.g., laws, regulations, directives, policies) are identified, followed by a more detailed analysis of which parts of the identified documents are relevant for which step of a given business process. Nowadays the identification of regulatory requirements relevant to business processes is mostly done manually by domain and legal experts, posing a tremendous effort on them, especially for a large number of regulatory documents which might frequently change. Hence, this work examines how legal and domain experts can be assisted in the assessment of relevant requirements. For this, we compare an embedding-based NLP ranking method, a generative AI method using GPT-4, and a crowdsourced method with the purely manual method of creating relevancy labels by experts. The proposed methods are evaluated based on two case studies: an Australian insurance case created with domain experts and a global banking use case, adapted from SAP Signavio's workflow example of an international guideline. A gold standard is created for both BPMN2.0 processes and matched to real-world textual requirements from multiple regulatory documents. The evaluation and discussion provide insights into strengths and weaknesses of each method regarding applicability, automation, transparency, and reproducibility and provide guidelines on which method combinations will maximize benefits for given characteristics such as process usage, impact, and dynamics of an application scenario.
△ Less
Submitted 2 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
-
Data Bias Management
Authors:
Gianluca Demartini,
Kevin Roitero,
Stefano Mizzaro
Abstract:
Due to the widespread use of data-powered systems in our everyday lives, concepts like bias and fairness gained significant attention among researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia. Such issues typically emerge from the data, which comes with varying levels of quality, used to train supervised machine learning systems. With the commercialization and deployment of such systems t…
▽ More
Due to the widespread use of data-powered systems in our everyday lives, concepts like bias and fairness gained significant attention among researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia. Such issues typically emerge from the data, which comes with varying levels of quality, used to train supervised machine learning systems. With the commercialization and deployment of such systems that are sometimes delegated to make life-changing decisions, significant efforts are being made towards the identification and removal of possible sources of data bias that may resurface to the final end user or in the decisions being made. In this paper, we present research results that show how bias in data affects end users, where bias is originated, and provide a viewpoint about what we should do about it. We argue that data bias is not something that should necessarily be removed in all cases, and that research attention should instead shift from bias removal towards the identification, measurement, indexing, surfacing, and adapting for bias, which we name bias management.
△ Less
Submitted 15 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
On the Impact of Data Quality on Image Classification Fairness
Authors:
Aki Barry,
Lei Han,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
With the proliferation of algorithmic decision-making, increased scrutiny has been placed on these systems. This paper explores the relationship between the quality of the training data and the overall fairness of the models trained with such data in the context of supervised classification. We measure key fairness metrics across a range of algorithms over multiple image classification datasets th…
▽ More
With the proliferation of algorithmic decision-making, increased scrutiny has been placed on these systems. This paper explores the relationship between the quality of the training data and the overall fairness of the models trained with such data in the context of supervised classification. We measure key fairness metrics across a range of algorithms over multiple image classification datasets that have a varying level of noise in both the labels and the training data itself. We describe noise in the labels as inaccuracies in the labelling of the data in the training set and noise in the data as distortions in the data, also in the training set. By adding noise to the original datasets, we can explore the relationship between the quality of the training data and the fairness of the output of the models trained on that data.
△ Less
Submitted 2 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
-
Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment
Authors:
Guglielmo Faggioli,
Laura Dietz,
Charles Clarke,
Gianluca Demartini,
Matthias Hagen,
Claudia Hauff,
Noriko Kando,
Evangelos Kanoulas,
Martin Potthast,
Benno Stein,
Henning Wachsmuth
Abstract:
When asked, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist with relevance judgments but it is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems. In this perspectives paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to support relevance judgments along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human--machine collaboration spectrum th…
▽ More
When asked, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist with relevance judgments but it is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems. In this perspectives paper, we discuss possible ways for LLMs to support relevance judgments along with concerns and issues that arise. We devise a human--machine collaboration spectrum that allows to categorize different relevance judgment strategies, based on how much humans rely on machines. For the extreme point of "fully automated judgments", we further include a pilot experiment on whether LLM-based relevance judgments correlate with judgments from trained human assessors. We conclude the paper by providing opposing perspectives for and against the use of~LLMs for automatic relevance judgments, and a compromise perspective, informed by our analyses of the literature, our preliminary experimental evidence, and our experience as IR researchers.
△ Less
Submitted 18 November, 2023; v1 submitted 13 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
-
Crowdsourced Fact-Checking at Twitter: How Does the Crowd Compare With Experts?
Authors:
Mohammed Saeed,
Nicolas Traub,
Maelle Nicolas,
Gianluca Demartini,
Paolo Papotti
Abstract:
Fact-checking is one of the effective solutions in fighting online misinformation. However, traditional fact-checking is a process requiring scarce expert human resources, and thus does not scale well on social media because of the continuous flow of new content to be checked. Methods based on crowdsourcing have been proposed to tackle this challenge, as they can scale with a smaller cost, but, wh…
▽ More
Fact-checking is one of the effective solutions in fighting online misinformation. However, traditional fact-checking is a process requiring scarce expert human resources, and thus does not scale well on social media because of the continuous flow of new content to be checked. Methods based on crowdsourcing have been proposed to tackle this challenge, as they can scale with a smaller cost, but, while they have shown to be feasible, have always been studied in controlled environments. In this work, we study the first large-scale effort of crowdsourced fact-checking deployed in practice, started by Twitter with the Birdwatch program. Our analysis shows that crowdsourcing may be an effective fact-checking strategy in some settings, even comparable to results obtained by human experts, but does not lead to consistent, actionable results in others. We processed 11.9k tweets verified by the Birdwatch program and report empirical evidence of i) differences in how the crowd and experts select content to be fact-checked, ii) how the crowd and the experts retrieve different resources to fact-check, and iii) the edge the crowd shows in fact-checking scalability and efficiency as compared to expert checkers.
△ Less
Submitted 19 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Managing Bias in Human-Annotated Data: Moving Beyond Bias Removal
Authors:
Gianluca Demartini,
Kevin Roitero,
Stefano Mizzaro
Abstract:
Due to the widespread use of data-powered systems in our everyday lives, the notions of bias and fairness gained significant attention among researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia. Such issues typically emerge from the data, which comes with varying levels of quality, used to train systems. With the commercialization and employment of such systems that are sometimes delegated…
▽ More
Due to the widespread use of data-powered systems in our everyday lives, the notions of bias and fairness gained significant attention among researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia. Such issues typically emerge from the data, which comes with varying levels of quality, used to train systems. With the commercialization and employment of such systems that are sometimes delegated to make life-changing decisions, a significant effort is being made towards the identification and removal of possible sources of bias that may surface to the final end-user. In this position paper, we instead argue that bias is not something that should necessarily be removed in all cases, and the attention and effort should shift from bias removal to the identification, measurement, indexing, surfacing, and adjustment of bias, which we name bias management. We argue that if correctly managed, bias can be a resource that can be made transparent to the the users and empower them to make informed choices about their experience with the system.
△ Less
Submitted 26 October, 2021;
originally announced October 2021.
-
The Many Dimensions of Truthfulness: Crowdsourcing Misinformation Assessments on a Multidimensional Scale
Authors:
Michael Soprano,
Kevin Roitero,
David La Barbera,
Davide Ceolin,
Damiano Spina,
Stefano Mizzaro,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
Recent work has demonstrated the viability of using crowdsourcing as a tool for evaluating the truthfulness of public statements. Under certain conditions such as: (1) having a balanced set of workers with different backgrounds and cognitive abilities; (2) using an adequate set of mechanisms to control the quality of the collected data; and (3) using a coarse grained assessment scale, the crowd ca…
▽ More
Recent work has demonstrated the viability of using crowdsourcing as a tool for evaluating the truthfulness of public statements. Under certain conditions such as: (1) having a balanced set of workers with different backgrounds and cognitive abilities; (2) using an adequate set of mechanisms to control the quality of the collected data; and (3) using a coarse grained assessment scale, the crowd can provide reliable identification of fake news. However, fake news are a subtle matter: statements can be just biased ("cherrypicked"), imprecise, wrong, etc. and the unidimensional truth scale used in existing work cannot account for such differences. In this paper we propose a multidimensional notion of truthfulness and we ask the crowd workers to assess seven different dimensions of truthfulness selected based on existing literature: Correctness, Neutrality, Comprehensibility, Precision, Completeness, Speaker's Trustworthiness, and Informativeness. We deploy a set of quality control mechanisms to ensure that the thousands of assessments collected on 180 publicly available fact-checked statements distributed over two datasets are of adequate quality, including a custom search engine used by the crowd workers to find web pages supporting their truthfulness assessments. A comprehensive analysis of crowdsourced judgments shows that: (1) the crowdsourced assessments are reliable when compared to an expert-provided gold standard; (2) the proposed dimensions of truthfulness capture independent pieces of information; (3) the crowdsourcing task can be easily learned by the workers; and (4) the resulting assessments provide a useful basis for a more complete estimation of statement truthfulness.
△ Less
Submitted 23 August, 2021; v1 submitted 2 August, 2021;
originally announced August 2021.
-
On the state of reporting in crowdsourcing experiments and a checklist to aid current practices
Authors:
Jorge Ramírez,
Burcu Sayin,
Marcos Baez,
Fabio Casati,
Luca Cernuzzi,
Boualem Benatallah,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
Crowdsourcing is being increasingly adopted as a platform to run studies with human subjects. Running a crowdsourcing experiment involves several choices and strategies to successfully port an experimental design into an otherwise uncontrolled research environment, e.g., sampling crowd workers, map** experimental conditions to micro-tasks, or ensure quality contributions. While several guideline…
▽ More
Crowdsourcing is being increasingly adopted as a platform to run studies with human subjects. Running a crowdsourcing experiment involves several choices and strategies to successfully port an experimental design into an otherwise uncontrolled research environment, e.g., sampling crowd workers, map** experimental conditions to micro-tasks, or ensure quality contributions. While several guidelines inform researchers in these choices, guidance of how and what to report from crowdsourcing experiments has been largely overlooked. If under-reported, implementation choices constitute variability sources that can affect the experiment's reproducibility and prevent a fair assessment of research outcomes. In this paper, we examine the current state of reporting of crowdsourcing experiments and offer guidance to address associated reporting issues. We start by identifying sensible implementation choices, relying on existing literature and interviews with experts, to then extensively analyze the reporting of 171 crowdsourcing experiments. Informed by this process, we propose a checklist for reporting crowdsourcing experiments.
△ Less
Submitted 9 September, 2021; v1 submitted 28 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Can the Crowd Judge Truthfulness? A Longitudinal Study on Recent Misinformation about COVID-19
Authors:
Kevin Roitero,
Michael Soprano,
Beatrice Portelli,
Massimiliano De Luise,
Damiano Spina,
Vincenzo Della Mea,
Giuseppe Serra,
Stefano Mizzaro,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
Recently, the misinformation problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of non-expert is exploited. We study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess truthfulness during a pandemic, targeting statements related to COVID-19, thus addressing (mis)information that is…
▽ More
Recently, the misinformation problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of non-expert is exploited. We study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess truthfulness during a pandemic, targeting statements related to COVID-19, thus addressing (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done. In our experiments, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, and to provide evidence for the assessments. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we report results on workers behavior, agreement among workers, effect of aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background and bias. We perform a longitudinal study by re-launching the task multiple times with both novice and experienced workers, deriving important insights on how the behavior and quality change over time. Our results show that: workers are able to detect and objectively categorize online (mis)information related to COVID-19; both crowdsourced and expert judgments can be transformed and aggregated to improve quality; worker background and other signals (e.g., source of information, behavior) impact the quality of the data. The longitudinal study demonstrates that the time-span has a major effect on the quality of the judgments, for both novice and experienced workers. Finally, we provide an extensive failure analysis of the statements misjudged by the crowd-workers.
△ Less
Submitted 19 September, 2021; v1 submitted 25 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
The COVID-19 Infodemic: Can the Crowd Judge Recent Misinformation Objectively?
Authors:
Kevin Roitero,
Michael Soprano,
Beatrice Portelli,
Damiano Spina,
Vincenzo Della Mea,
Giuseppe Serra,
Stefano Mizzaro,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
Misinformation is an ever increasing problem that is difficult to solve for the research community and has a negative impact on the society at large. Very recently, the problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach to scale up labeling efforts: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of (non-expert) judges is exploited. We follow the…
▽ More
Misinformation is an ever increasing problem that is difficult to solve for the research community and has a negative impact on the society at large. Very recently, the problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach to scale up labeling efforts: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of (non-expert) judges is exploited. We follow the same approach to study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess statements truthfulness during a pandemic. We specifically target statements related to the COVID-19 health emergency, that is still ongoing at the time of the study and has arguably caused an increase of the amount of misinformation that is spreading online (a phenomenon for which the term "infodemic" has been used). By doing so, we are able to address (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue like health and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done: two issues that have not been analyzed in related work. In our experiment, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, as well as to provide evidence for the assessments as a URL and a text justification. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we also report results on many different aspects, including: agreement among workers, the effect of different aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background / bias. We also analyze workers behavior, in terms of queries submitted, URLs found / selected, text justifications, and other behavioral data like clicks and mouse actions collected by means of an ad hoc logger.
△ Less
Submitted 13 August, 2020;
originally announced August 2020.
-
Proceedings of the KG-BIAS Workshop 2020 at AKBC 2020
Authors:
Edgar Meij,
Tara Safavi,
Chenyan Xiong,
Gianluca Demartini,
Miriam Redi,
Fatma Özcan
Abstract:
The KG-BIAS 2020 workshop touches on biases and how they surface in knowledge graphs (KGs), biases in the source data that is used to create KGs, methods for measuring or remediating bias in KGs, but also identifying other biases such as how and which languages are represented in automatically constructed KGs or how personal KGs might incur inherent biases. The goal of this workshop is to uncover…
▽ More
The KG-BIAS 2020 workshop touches on biases and how they surface in knowledge graphs (KGs), biases in the source data that is used to create KGs, methods for measuring or remediating bias in KGs, but also identifying other biases such as how and which languages are represented in automatically constructed KGs or how personal KGs might incur inherent biases. The goal of this workshop is to uncover how various types of biases are introduced into KGs, investigate how to measure, and propose methods to remediate them.
△ Less
Submitted 18 June, 2020;
originally announced July 2020.
-
Can The Crowd Identify Misinformation Objectively? The Effects of Judgment Scale and Assessor's Background
Authors:
Kevin Roitero,
Michael Soprano,
Shaoyang Fan,
Damiano Spina,
Stefano Mizzaro,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
Truthfulness judgments are a fundamental step in the process of fighting misinformation, as they are crucial to train and evaluate classifiers that automatically distinguish true and false statements. Usually such judgments are made by experts, like journalists for political statements or medical doctors for medical statements. In this paper, we follow a different approach and rely on (non-expert)…
▽ More
Truthfulness judgments are a fundamental step in the process of fighting misinformation, as they are crucial to train and evaluate classifiers that automatically distinguish true and false statements. Usually such judgments are made by experts, like journalists for political statements or medical doctors for medical statements. In this paper, we follow a different approach and rely on (non-expert) crowd workers. This of course leads to the following research question: Can crowdsourcing be reliably used to assess the truthfulness of information and to create large-scale labeled collections for information credibility systems? To address this issue, we present the results of an extensive study based on crowdsourcing: we collect thousands of truthfulness assessments over two datasets, and we compare expert judgments with crowd judgments, expressed on scales with various granularity levels. We also measure the political bias and the cognitive background of the workers, and quantify their effect on the reliability of the data provided by the crowd.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2020; v1 submitted 14 May, 2020;
originally announced May 2020.
-
Non-Parametric Class Completeness Estimators for Collaborative Knowledge Graphs -- The Case of Wikidata
Authors:
Michael Luggen,
Djellel Difallah,
Cristina Sarasua,
Gianluca Demartini,
Philippe Cudré-Mauroux
Abstract:
Collaborative Knowledge Graph platforms allow humans and automated scripts to collaborate in creating, updating and interlinking entities and facts. To ensure both the completeness of the data as well as a uniform coverage of the different topics, it is crucial to identify underrepresented classes in the Knowledge Graph. In this paper, we tackle this problem by develo** statistical techniques fo…
▽ More
Collaborative Knowledge Graph platforms allow humans and automated scripts to collaborate in creating, updating and interlinking entities and facts. To ensure both the completeness of the data as well as a uniform coverage of the different topics, it is crucial to identify underrepresented classes in the Knowledge Graph. In this paper, we tackle this problem by develo** statistical techniques for class cardinality estimation in collaborative Knowledge Graph platforms. Our method is able to estimate the completeness of a class - as defined by a schema or ontology - hence can be used to answer questions such as "Does the knowledge base have a complete list of all {Beer Brands|Volcanos|Video Game Consoles}?" As a use-case, we focus on Wikidata, which poses unique challenges in terms of the size of its ontology, the number of users actively populating its graph, and its extremely dynamic nature. Our techniques are derived from species estimation and data-management methodologies, and are applied to the case of graphs and collaborative editing. In our empirical evaluation, we observe that i) the number and frequency of unique class instances drastically influence the performance of an estimator, ii) bursts of inserts cause some estimators to overestimate the true size of the class if they are not properly handled, and iii) one can effectively measure the convergence of a class towards its true size by considering the stability of an estimator against the number of available instances.
△ Less
Submitted 3 September, 2019;
originally announced September 2019.
-
FashionBrain Project: A Vision for Understanding Europe's Fashion Data Universe
Authors:
Alessandro Checco,
Gianluca Demartini,
Alexander Loeser,
Ines Arous,
Mourad Khayati,
Matthias Dantone,
Richard Koopmanschap,
Svetlin Stalinov,
Martin Kersten,
Ying Zhang
Abstract:
A core business in the fashion industry is the understanding and prediction of customer needs and trends. Search engines and social networks are at the same time a fundamental bridge and a costly middleman between the customer's purchase intention and the retailer. To better exploit Europe's distinctive characteristics e.g., multiple languages, fashion and cultural differences, it is pivotal to re…
▽ More
A core business in the fashion industry is the understanding and prediction of customer needs and trends. Search engines and social networks are at the same time a fundamental bridge and a costly middleman between the customer's purchase intention and the retailer. To better exploit Europe's distinctive characteristics e.g., multiple languages, fashion and cultural differences, it is pivotal to reduce retailers' dependence to search engines. This goal can be achieved by harnessing various data channels (manufacturers and distribution networks, online shops, large retailers, social media, market observers, call centers, press/magazines etc.) that retailers can leverage in order to gain more insight about potential buyers, and on the industry trends as a whole. This can enable the creation of novel on-line shop** experiences, the detection of influencers, and the prediction of upcoming fashion trends.
In this paper, we provide an overview of the main research challenges and an analysis of the most promising technological solutions that we are investigating in the FashionBrain project.
△ Less
Submitted 26 October, 2017;
originally announced October 2017.
-
The Effect of Class Imbalance and Order on Crowdsourced Relevance Judgments
Authors:
Rehab K. Qarout,
Alessandro Checco,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
In this paper we study the effect on crowd worker efficiency and effectiveness of the dominance of one class in the data they process. We aim at understanding if there is any positive or negative bias in workers seeing many negative examples in the identification of positive labels. To test our hypothesis, we design an experiment where crowd workers are asked to judge the relevance of documents pr…
▽ More
In this paper we study the effect on crowd worker efficiency and effectiveness of the dominance of one class in the data they process. We aim at understanding if there is any positive or negative bias in workers seeing many negative examples in the identification of positive labels. To test our hypothesis, we design an experiment where crowd workers are asked to judge the relevance of documents presented in different orders. Our findings indicate that there is a significant improvement in the quality of relevance judgements when presenting relevant results before the non-relevant ones.
△ Less
Submitted 4 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
-
Pairwise, Magnitude, or Stars: What's the Best Way for Crowds to Rate?
Authors:
Alessandro Checco,
Gianluca Demartini
Abstract:
We compare three popular techniques of rating content: the ubiquitous five star rating, the less used pairwise comparison, and the recently introduced (in crowdsourcing) magnitude estimation approach. Each system has specific advantages and disadvantages, in terms of required user effort, achievable user preference prediction accuracy and number of ratings required.
We design an experiment where…
▽ More
We compare three popular techniques of rating content: the ubiquitous five star rating, the less used pairwise comparison, and the recently introduced (in crowdsourcing) magnitude estimation approach. Each system has specific advantages and disadvantages, in terms of required user effort, achievable user preference prediction accuracy and number of ratings required.
We design an experiment where the three techniques are compared in an unbiased way. We collected 39'000 ratings on a popular crowdsourcing platform, allowing us to release a dataset that will be useful for many related studies on user rating techniques.
△ Less
Submitted 2 September, 2016;
originally announced September 2016.
