Total: 3
A common technique for improving the quality of crowdsourcing results is to assign a same task to multiple workers redundantly, and then to aggregate the results to obtain a higher-quality result; however, this technique is not applicable to complex tasks such as article writing since there is no obvious way to aggregate the results. Instead, we can use a two-stage procedure consisting of a creation stage and an evaluation stage, where we first ask workers to create artifacts, and then ask other workers to evaluate the artifacts to estimate their quality. In this study, we propose a novel quality estimation method for the two-stage procedure where pairwise comparison results for pairs of artifacts are collected at the evaluation stage. Our method is based on an extension of Kleinberg's HITS algorithm to pairwise comparison, which takes into account the ability of evaluators as well as the ability of creators. Experiments using actual crowdsourcing tasks show that our methods outperform baseline methods especially when the number of evaluators per artifact is small.
Analyses of text corpora over time can reveal trends in beliefs, interest, and sentiment about a topic. We focus on views expressed about artificial intelligence (AI) in the New York Times over a 30-year period. General interest, awareness, and discussion about AI has waxed and waned since the field was founded in 1956. We present a set of measures that captures levels of engagement, measures of pessimism and optimism, the prevalence of specific hopes and concerns, and topics that are linked to discussions about AI over decades. We find that discussion of AI has increased sharply since 2009, and that these discussions have been consistently more optimistic than pessimistic. However, when we examine specific concerns, we find that worries of loss of control of AI, ethical concerns for AI, and the negative impact of AI on work have grown in recent years. We also find that hopes for AI in healthcare and education have increased over time.
Entity resolution (ER) is the task of identifying all records in a database that refer to the same underlying entity, and are therefore duplicates of each other. Due to inherent ambiguity of data representation and poor data quality, ER is a challenging task for any automated process. As a remedy, human-powered ER via crowdsourcing has become popular in recent years. Using crowd to answer queries is costly and time consuming. Furthermore, crowd-answers can often be faulty. Therefore, crowd-based ER methods aim to minimize human participation without sacrificing the quality and use a computer generated similarity matrix actively. While, some of these methods perform well in practice, no theoretical analysis exists for them, and further their worst case performances do not reflect the experimental findings. This creates a disparity in the understanding of the popular heuristics for this problem. In this paper, we make the first attempt to close this gap. We provide a thorough analysis of the prominent heuristic algorithms for crowd-based ER. We justify experimental observations with our analysis and information theoretic lower bounds.