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

Much Ado About Time: Exhaustive Annotation of Temporal Data

Large-scale annotated datasets allow AI systems to learn from and build upon the knowledge of the crowd. Many crowdsourcing techniques have been developed for collecting image annotations. These techniques often implicitly rely on the fact that a new input image takes a negligible amount of time to perceive. In contrast, we investigate and determine the most cost-effective way of obtaining high-quality multi-label annotations for temporal data such as videos. Watching even a short 30-second video clip requires a significant time investment from a crowd worker; thus, requesting multiple annotations following a single viewing is an important cost-saving strategy. But how many questions should we ask per video? We conclude that the optimal strategy is to ask as many questions as possible in a HIT (up to 52 binary questions after watching a 30-second video clip in our experiments). We demonstrate that while workers may not correctly answer all questions, the cost-benefit analysis nevertheless favors consensus from multiple such cheap-yet-imperfect iterations over more complex alternatives. When compared with a one-question-per-video baseline, our method is able to achieve a 10% improvement in recall 76.7% ours versus 66.7% baseline) at comparable precision (83.8% ours versus 83.0% baseline) in about half the annotation time (3.8 minutes ours compared to 7.1 minutes baseline). We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by collecting multi-label annotations of 157 human activities on 1,815 videos.Comment: HCOMP 2016 Camera Read

Web archives: the future

T his report is structured first, to engage in some speculative thought about the possible futures of the web as an exercise in prom pting us to think about what we need to do now in order to make sure that we can reliably and fruitfully use archives of the w eb in the future. Next, we turn to considering the methods and tools being used to research the live web, as a pointer to the types of things that can be developed to help unde rstand the archived web. Then , we turn to a series of topics and questions that researchers want or may want to address using the archived web. In this final section, we i dentify some of the challenges individuals, organizations, and international bodies can target to increase our ability to explore these topi cs and answer these quest ions. We end the report with some conclusions based on what we have learned from this exercise

Cross-Platform Text Mining and Natural Language Processing Interoperability - Proceedings of the LREC2016 conference

No abstract available

Cross-Platform Text Mining and Natural Language Processing Interoperability - Proceedings of the LREC2016 conference

No abstract available

Report on the 2015 NSF Workshop on Unified Annotation Tooling

On March 30 & 31, 2015, an international group of twenty-three researchers with expertise in linguistic annotation convened in Sunny Isles Beach, Florida to discuss problems with and potential solutions for the state of linguistic annotation tooling. The participants comprised 14 researchers from the U.S. and 9 from outside the U.S., with 7 countries and 4 continents represented, and hailed from fields and specialties including computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, speech processing, multi-modal data processing, clinical & medical natural language processing, linguistics, documentary linguistics, sign-language linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the digital humanities. The motivating problem of the workshop was the balkanization of annotation tooling, namely, that even though linguistic annotation requires sophisticated tool support to efficiently generate high-quality data, the landscape of tools for the field is fractured, incompatible, inconsistent, and lacks key capabilities. The overall goal of the workshop was to chart the way forward, centering on five key questions: (1) What are the problems with current tool landscape? (2) What are the possible benefits of solving some or all of these problems? (3) What capabilities are most needed? (4) How should we go about implementing these capabilities? And, (5) How should we ensure longevity and sustainability of the solution? I surveyed the participants before their arrival, which provided significant raw material for ideas, and the workshop discussion itself resulted in identification of ten specific classes of problems, five sets of most-needed capabilities. Importantly, we identified annotation project managers in computational linguistics as the key recipients and users of any solution, thereby succinctly addressing questions about the scope and audience of potential solutions. We discussed management and sustainability of potential solutions at length. The participants agreed on sixteen recommendations for future work. This technical report contains a detailed discussion of all these topics, a point-by-point review of the discussion in the workshop as it unfolded, detailed information on the participants and their expertise, and the summarized data from the surveys

Identifying landscape relevant natural language using actively crowdsourced landscape descriptions and sentence-transformers

Natural language has proven to be a valuable source of data for various scientific inquiries including landscape perception and preference research. However, large high quality landscape relevant corpora are scare. We here propose and discuss a natural language processing workflow to identify landscape relevant documents in large collections of unstructured text. Using a small curated high quality collection of actively crowdsourced landscape descriptions we identify and extract similar documents from two different corpora (Geograph and WikiHow) using sentence-transformers and cosine similarity scores. We show that 1) sentence-transformers combined with cosine similarity calculations successfully identify similar documents in both Geograph and WikiHow effectively opening the door to the creation of new landscape specific corpora, 2) the proposed sentence-transformer approach outperforms traditional Term Frequency - Inverse Document Frequency based approaches and 3) the identified documents capture similar topics when compared to the original high quality collection. The presented workflow is transferable to various scientific disciplines in need of domain specific natural language corpora as underlying data