In recent years, crowdsourcing has become essential in a wide range of Web applications. One of the biggest challenges of crowdsourcing is the quality of crowd answers as workers have wide-ranging levels of expertise and the worker community may contain faulty workers. Although various techniques for quality control have been proposed, a post-processing phase in which crowd answers are validated is still required. Validation is typically conducted by experts, whose availability is limited and who incur high costs. Therefore, we develop a probabilistic model that helps to identify the most beneficial validation questions in terms of both, improvement of result correctness and detection of faulty workers. Our approach allows us to guide the expert's work by collecting input on the most problematic cases, thereby achieving a set of high quality answers even if the expert does not validate the complete answer set. Our comprehensive evaluation using both real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrates that our techniques save up to 50% of expert efforts compared to baseline methods when striving for perfect result correctness. In absolute terms, for most cases, we achieve close to perfect correctness after expert input has been sought for only 20% of the questions.

No abstract

Crowdsourcing has been established as an essential means to scale human computation in diverse Web applications, reaching from data integration to information retrieval. Yet, crowd workers have wide-ranging levels of expertise. Large worker populations are heterogeneous and comprise a significant amount of faulty workers. As a consequence, quality insurance for crowd answers is commonly seen as the Achilles heel of crowdsourcing. Although various techniques for quality control have been proposed in recent years, a post-processing phase in which crowd answers are validated is still required. Such validation, however, is typically conducted by experts, whose availability is limited and whose work incurs comparatively high costs. This work aims at guiding an expert in the validation of crowd answers. We present a probabilistic model that helps to identify the most beneficial validation questions in terms of both improvement in result correctness and detection of faulty workers. By seeking expert feedback on the most problematic cases, we are able to obtain a set of high-quality answers, even if the expert does not validate the complete answer set. Our approach is applicable for a broad range of crowdsourcing tasks, including classification and counting. Our comprehensive evaluation using both real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrates that our techniques save up to 60% of expert efforts compared to baseline methods when striving for perfect result correctness. In absolute terms, for most cases, we B Nguyen Quoc Viet Hung

No abstract

Abstract. Diversification is a method of improving user satisfaction by increasing the variety of information shown to user. Due to the lack of a precise definition of information variety, many diversification techniques have been proposed. These techniques, however, have been rarely compared and analyzed under the same setting, rendering a 'right' choice for a particular application very difficult. Addressing this problem, this paper presents a benchmark that offers a comprehensive empirical study on the performance comparison of diversification. Specifically, we integrate several state-of-the-art diversification algorithms in a comparable manner, and measure distinct characteristics of these algorithms with various settings. We then provide in-depth analysis of the benchmark results, obtained by using both real data and synthetic data. We believe that the findings from the benchmark will serve as a practical guideline for potential applications.