1,004 research outputs found
Empirical Methodology for Crowdsourcing Ground Truth
The process of gathering ground truth data through human annotation is a
major bottleneck in the use of information extraction methods for populating
the Semantic Web. Crowdsourcing-based approaches are gaining popularity in the
attempt to solve the issues related to volume of data and lack of annotators.
Typically these practices use inter-annotator agreement as a measure of
quality. However, in many domains, such as event detection, there is ambiguity
in the data, as well as a multitude of perspectives of the information
examples. We present an empirically derived methodology for efficiently
gathering of ground truth data in a diverse set of use cases covering a variety
of domains and annotation tasks. Central to our approach is the use of
CrowdTruth metrics that capture inter-annotator disagreement. We show that
measuring disagreement is essential for acquiring a high quality ground truth.
We achieve this by comparing the quality of the data aggregated with CrowdTruth
metrics with majority vote, over a set of diverse crowdsourcing tasks: Medical
Relation Extraction, Twitter Event Identification, News Event Extraction and
Sound Interpretation. We also show that an increased number of crowd workers
leads to growth and stabilization in the quality of annotations, going against
the usual practice of employing a small number of annotators.Comment: in publication at the Semantic Web Journa
Capturing Ambiguity in Crowdsourcing Frame Disambiguation
FrameNet is a computational linguistics resource composed of semantic frames,
high-level concepts that represent the meanings of words. In this paper, we
present an approach to gather frame disambiguation annotations in sentences
using a crowdsourcing approach with multiple workers per sentence to capture
inter-annotator disagreement. We perform an experiment over a set of 433
sentences annotated with frames from the FrameNet corpus, and show that the
aggregated crowd annotations achieve an F1 score greater than 0.67 as compared
to expert linguists. We highlight cases where the crowd annotation was correct
even though the expert is in disagreement, arguing for the need to have
multiple annotators per sentence. Most importantly, we examine cases in which
crowd workers could not agree, and demonstrate that these cases exhibit
ambiguity, either in the sentence, frame, or the task itself, and argue that
collapsing such cases to a single, discrete truth value (i.e. correct or
incorrect) is inappropriate, creating arbitrary targets for machine learning.Comment: in publication at the sixth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and
Crowdsourcing (HCOMP) 201
Crowdsourcing in Computer Vision
Computer vision systems require large amounts of manually annotated data to
properly learn challenging visual concepts. Crowdsourcing platforms offer an
inexpensive method to capture human knowledge and understanding, for a vast
number of visual perception tasks. In this survey, we describe the types of
annotations computer vision researchers have collected using crowdsourcing, and
how they have ensured that this data is of high quality while annotation effort
is minimized. We begin by discussing data collection on both classic (e.g.,
object recognition) and recent (e.g., visual story-telling) vision tasks. We
then summarize key design decisions for creating effective data collection
interfaces and workflows, and present strategies for intelligently selecting
the most important data instances to annotate. Finally, we conclude with some
thoughts on the future of crowdsourcing in computer vision.Comment: A 69-page meta review of the field, Foundations and Trends in
Computer Graphics and Vision, 201
Understanding Task Design Trade-offs in Crowdsourced Paraphrase Collection
Linguistically diverse datasets are critical for training and evaluating
robust machine learning systems, but data collection is a costly process that
often requires experts. Crowdsourcing the process of paraphrase generation is
an effective means of expanding natural language datasets, but there has been
limited analysis of the trade-offs that arise when designing tasks. In this
paper, we present the first systematic study of the key factors in
crowdsourcing paraphrase collection. We consider variations in instructions,
incentives, data domains, and workflows. We manually analyzed paraphrases for
correctness, grammaticality, and linguistic diversity. Our observations provide
new insight into the trade-offs between accuracy and diversity in crowd
responses that arise as a result of task design, providing guidance for future
paraphrase generation procedures.Comment: Published at ACL 201
Truth Is a Lie: Crowd Truth and the Seven Myths of Human Annotation
Big data is having a disruptive impact across the sciences. Human annotation of semantic interpretation tasks is a critical part of big data semantics, but it is based on an antiquated ideal of a single correct truth that needs to be similarly disrupted. We expose seven myths about human annotation, most of which derive from that antiquated ideal of truth, and dispell these myths with examples from our research. We propose a new theory of truth, crowd truth, that is based on the intuition that human interpretation is subjective, and that measuring annotations on the same objects of interpretation (in our examples, sentences) across a crowd will provide a useful representation of their subjectivity and the range of reasonable interpretations
- …