No abstract

When collecting subjective human ratings of items, it can be difficult to measure and enforce data quality due to task subjectivity and lack of insight into how judges arrive at each rating decision. To address this, we propose requiring judges to provide a specific type of rationale underlying each rating decision. We evaluate this approach in the domain of Information Retrieval, where human judges rate the relevance of Webpages. Costbenefit analysis over 10,000 judgments collected on Mechanical Turk suggests a win-win: experienced crowd workers provide rationales with no increase in task completion time while providing further benefits, including more reliable judgments and greater transparency 1 .

A recent ''third wave'' of neural network (NN) approaches now delivers state-ofthe-art performance in many machine learning tasks, spanning speech recognition, computer vision, and natural language processing. Because these modern NNs often comprise multiple interconnected layers, work in this area is often referred to as deep learning. Recent years have witnessed an explosive growth of research into NN-based approaches to information retrieval (IR). A significant body of work has now been created. In this paper,

When collecting item ratings from human judges, it can be difficult to measure and enforce data quality due to task subjectivity and lack of transparency into how judges make each rating decision. To address this, we investigate asking judges to provide a specific form of rationale supporting each rating decision. We evaluate this approach on an information retrieval task in which human judges rate the relevance of Web pages for different search topics. Cost-benefit analysis over 10,000 judgments collected on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk suggests a win-win. Firstly, rationales yield a multitude of benefits: more reliable judgments, greater transparency for evaluating both human raters and their judgments, reduced need for expert gold, the opportunity for dual-supervision from ratings and rationales, and added value from the rationales themselves. Secondly, once experienced in the task, crowd workers provide rationales with almost no increase in task completion time. Consequently, we can realize the above benefits with minimal additional cost.

When collecting subjective human ratings of items, it can be difficult to measure and enforce data quality due to task subjectivity and lack of insight into how judges’ arrive at each rating decision. To address this, we propose requiring judges to provide a specific type of rationale underlying each rating decision. We evaluate this approach in the domain of Information Retrieval, where human judges rate the relevance of Webpages to search queries. Cost-benefit analysis over 10,000 judgments collected on Mechanical Turk suggests a win-win: experienced crowd workers provide rationales with almost no increase in task completion time while providing a multitude of further benefits, including more reliable judgments and greater transparency for evaluating both human raters and their judgments. Further benefits include reduced need for expert gold, the opportunity for dual-supervision from ratings and rationales, and added value from the rationales themselves.