skip to main content
10.1145/3183713.3183762acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Rating-Ranking Method for Crowdsourced Top-k Computation

Published:27 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Crowdsourced top- k computation aims to utilize the human ability to identify Top- k objects from a given set of objects. Most of existing studies employ a pairwise comparison based method, which first asks workers to compare each pair of objects and then infers the Top- k results based on the pairwise comparison results. Obviously, it is quadratic to compare every object pair and these methods involve huge monetary cost, especially for large datasets. To address this problem, we propose a rating-ranking-based approach, which contains two types of questions to ask the crowd. The first is a rating question, which asks the crowd to give a score for an object. The second is a ranking question, which asks the crowd to rank several (e.g., 3) objects. Rating questions are coarse grained and can roughly get a score for each object, which can be used to prune the objects whose scores are much smaller than those of the Top- k objects. Ranking questions are fine grained and can be used to refine the scores. We propose a unified model to model the rating and ranking questions, and seamlessly combine them together to compute the Top- k results. We also study how to judiciously select appropriate rating or ranking questions and assign them to a coming worker. Experimental results on real datasets show that our method significantly outperforms existing approaches.

References

  1. R. M. Adelsman and A. B. Whinston. Sophisticated voting with information for two voting functions. Journal of Economic Theory, 15(1):145--159, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. R. A. Bradley and M. E. Terry. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, pages 324--345, 1952.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. R. Busa-Fekete, B. Szorenyi, W. Cheng, P. Weng, and E. Hullermeier. Top-k selection based on adaptive sampling of noisy preferences. In ICML, pages 1094--1102, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. C. Chai, G. Li, J. Li, D. Deng, and J. Feng. Cost-effective crowdsourced entity resolution: A partial-order approach. In SIGMOD, pages 969--984, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. X. Chen, P. N. Bennett, K. Collins-Thompson, and E. Horvitz. Pairwise ranking aggregation in a crowdsourced setting. In WSDM, pages 193--202, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Y. Chen and C. Suh. Spectral MLE: top-k rank aggregation from pairwise comparisons. In ICML, pages 371--380, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. B. Davidson, S. Khanna, T. Milo, and S. Roy. Using the crowd for top-k and group-by queries. In ICDT, pages 225--236, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. B. Eriksson. Learning to top-k search using pairwise comparisons. In AISTATS, pages 265--273, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. Fan, G. Li, B. C. Ooi, K. Tan, and J. Feng. icrowd: An adaptive crowdsourcing framework. In SIGMOD, pages 1015--1030, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. J. Fan, M. Zhang, S. Kok, M. Lu, and B. C. Ooi. Crowdop: Query optimization for declarative crowdsourcing systems. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 27(8):2078--2092, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. U. Feige, P. Raghavan, D. Peleg, and E. Upfal. Computing with noisy information. pages 1001--1018, 1994. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Feng, G. Li, H. Wang, and J. Feng. Incremental quality inference in crowdsourcing. In DASFAA, pages 453--467, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. R. Fletcher. Practical methods of optimization. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. M. J. Franklin, D. Kossmann, T. Kraska, S. Ramesh, and R. Xin. Crowddb: answering queries with crowdsourcing. In SIGMOD, pages 61--72, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. J. Guiver and E. Snelson. Bayesian inference for plackett-luce ranking models. In ICML, pages 377--384, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. S. Guo, A. G. Parameswaran, and H. Garcia-Molina. So who won?: dynamic max discovery with the crowd. In SIGMOD, pages 385--396, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. A. R. Khan and H. Garcia-Molina. Hybrid strategies for finding the max with the crowd: Technical report. Technical report, Stanford University, February 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. N. M. Kou, Y. Li, H. Wang, L. H. U, and Z. Gong. Crowdsourced top-k queries by confidence-aware pairwise judgments. In SIGMOD, pages 1415--1430, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. G. Li. Human-in-the-loop data integration. PVLDB, 10(12):2006--2017, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. G. Li, C. Chai, J. Fan, X. Weng, J. Li, Y. Zheng, Y. Li, X. Yu, X. Zhang, and H. Yuan. CDB: optimizing queries with crowd-based selections and joins. In SIGMOD, pages 1463--1478, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. G. Li, J. Wang, Y. Zheng, and M. J. Franklin. Crowdsourced data management: A survey. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., 28(9):2296--2319, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. G. Li, Y. Zheng, J. Fan, J. Wang, and R. Cheng. Crowdsourced data management: Overview and challenges. In SIGMOD, pages 1711--1716, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Marcus, D. R. Karger, S. Madden, R. Miller, and S. Oh. Counting with the crowd. PVLDB, 6(2):109--120, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Marcus, E. Wu, D. R. Karger, S. Madden, and R. C. Miller. Human-powered sorts and joins. PVLDB, 5(1):13--24, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. A. Marcus, E. Wu, S. Madden, and R. C. Miller. Crowdsourced databases: Query processing with people. In CIDR, pages 211--214, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. J. I. Marden. Analyzing and modeling rank data. CRC Press, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. S. Negahban, S. Oh, and D. Shah. Iterative ranking from pair-wise comparisons. In NIPS, pages 2483--2491, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. A. G. Parameswaran, H. Garcia-Molina, H. Park, N. Polyzotis, A. Ramesh, and J. Widom. Crowdscreen: algorithms for filtering data with humans. In SIGMOD, pages 361--372, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. H. Park, R. Pang, A. G. Parameswaran, H. Garcia-Molina, N. Polyzotis, and J. Widom. Deco: A system for declarative crowdsourcing. PVLDB, 5(12):1990--1993, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. H. Park and J. Widom. Crowdfill: collecting structured data from the crowd. In SIGMOD, pages 577--588, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. T. Pfeiffer, X. A. Gao, Y. Chen, A. Mao, and D. G. Rand. Adaptive polling for information aggregation. In AAAI, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. J.-C. Pomerol and S. Barba-Romero. Multicriterion decision in management: principles and practice, volume 25. Springer, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. A. D. Sarma, A. G. Parameswaran, H. Garcia-Molina, and A. Y. Halevy. Crowd-powered find algorithms. In ICDE, pages 964--975, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. C. Shan, N. Mamoulis, G. Li, R. Cheng, Z. Huang, and Y. Zheng. T-crowd: Effective crowdsourcing for tabular data. ICDE, abs/1708.02125, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. L. L. Thurstone. The method of paired comparisons for social values. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 21(4):384, 1927.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. B. Trushkowsky, T. Kraska, M. J. Franklin, and P. Sarkar. Crowdsourced enumeration queries. In ICDE, pages 673--684, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. P. Venetis, H. Garcia-Molina, K. Huang, and N. Polyzotis. Max algorithms in crowdsourcing environments. In WWW, pages 989--998, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. J. Wang, T. Kraska, M. J. Franklin, and J. Feng. CrowdER: crowdsourcing entity resolution. PVLDB, 5(11):1483--1494, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. J. Wang, G. Li, T. Kraska, M. J. Franklin, and J. Feng. Leveraging transitive relations for crowdsourced joins. In SIGMOD, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. F. L. Wauthier, M. I. Jordan, and N. Jojic. Efficient ranking from pairwise comparisons. In ICML, pages 109--117, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. X. Weng, G. Li, H. Hu, and J. Feng. Crowdsourced selection on multi-attribute data. In CIKM, pages 307--316, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. T. Yan, V. Kumar, and D. Ganesan. Crowdsearch: exploiting crowds for accurate real-time image search on mobile phones. In MobiSys. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. P. Ye, U. EDU, and D. Doermann. Combining preference and absolute judgements in a crowd-sourced setting. In ICML '13 Workshop, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. X. Zhang, G. Li, and J. Feng. Crowdsourced top-k algorithms: An experimental evaluation. PVLDB, 9(8):612--623, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Y. Zheng, G. Li, and R. Cheng. DOCS: domain-aware crowdsourcing system. PVLDB, 10(4):361--372, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Y. Zheng, G. Li, Y. Li, C. Shan, and R. Cheng. Truth inference in crowdsourcing: Is the problem solved? PVLDB, 10(5):541--552, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Y. Zheng, J. Wang, G. Li, R. Cheng, and J. Feng. QASCA: A quality-aware task assignment system for crowdsourcing applications. In SIGMOD, pages 1031--1046, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Y. Zhuang, G. Li, Z. Zhong, and J. Feng. Hike: A hybrid human-machine method for entity alignment in large-scale knowledge bases. In CIKM, pages 1917--1926, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Rating-Ranking Method for Crowdsourced Top-k Computation

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SIGMOD '18: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data
        May 2018
        1874 pages
        ISBN:9781450347037
        DOI:10.1145/3183713

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 27 May 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGMOD '18 Paper Acceptance Rate90of461submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader