More Like this

1. Testing conventional wisdom (of the crowd)

   Burrell, Noah Burrell ; Schoenebeck, Grant ( July 2024 , Proceedings of Machine Learning Research; Proceedings of the Thirty-Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence)

   Evans, Robin J ; Shpitser, Ilya (Ed.)

   Do common assumptions about the way that crowd workers make mistakes in microtask (labeling) applications manifest in real crowdsourcing data? Prior work only addresses this question indirectly. Instead, it primarily focuses on designing new label aggregation algorithms, seeming to imply that better performance justifies any additional assumptions. However, empirical evidence in past instances has raised significant challenges to common assumptions. We continue this line of work, using crowdsourcing data itself as directly as possible to interrogate several basic assumptions about workers and tasks. We find strong evidence that the assumption that workers respond correctly to each task with a constant probability, which is common in theoretical work, is implausible in real data. We also illustrate how heterogeneity among tasks and workers can take different forms, which have different implications for the design and evaluation of label aggregation algorithms. 

   more » « less
2. Research Methods to Study & Empower Crowd Workers

   Savage, S ; Toxtli, C ; Betanzos, E. ( January 2021 , Oxford)

   null (Ed.)

   The artificial intelligence (AI) industry has created new jobs that are essential to the real world deployment of intelligent systems. Part of the job focuses on labeling data for machine learning models or having workers complete tasks that AI alone cannot do. These workers are usually known as ‘crowd workers’—they are part of a large distributed crowd that is jointly (but separately) working on the tasks although they are often invisible to end-users, leading to workers often being paid below minimum wage and having limited career growth. In this chapter, we draw upon the field of human–computer interaction to provide research methods for studying and empowering crowd workers. We present our Computational Worker Leagues which enable workers to work towards their desired professional goals and also supply quantitative information about crowdsourcing markets. This chapter demonstrates the benefits of this approach and highlights important factors to consider when researching the experiences of crowd workers. 

   more » « less
3. Accurate inference of crowdsourcing properties when using efficient allocation strategies

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10794-9  

   Hotaling, Abigail ; Bagrow, James ( April 2022 , Scientific Reports)

   Allocation strategies improve the efficiency of crowdsourcing by decreasing the work needed to complete individual tasks accurately. However, these algorithms introduce bias by preferentially allocating workers onto easy tasks, leading to sets of completed tasks that are no longer representative of all tasks. This bias challenges inference of problem-wide properties such as typical task difficulty or crowd properties such as worker completion times, important information that goes beyond the crowd responses themselves. Here we study inference about problem properties when using an allocation algorithm to improve crowd efficiency. We introduce Decision-Explicit Probability Sampling (DEPS), a novel method to perform inference of problem properties while accounting for the potential bias introduced by an allocation strategy. Experiments on real and synthetic crowdsourcing data show that DEPS outperforms baseline inference methods while still leveraging the efficiency gains of the allocation method. The ability to perform accurate inference of general properties when using non-representative data allows crowdsourcers to extract more knowledge out of a given crowdsourced dataset.

    

   more » « less
4. Quantifying the Invisible Labor in Crowd Work

   Toxtli, C ; Suri, S ; Savage, Saiph. ( January 2021 , Computer supported cooperative work CSCW)

   null (Ed.)

   Crowdsourcing markets provide workers with a centralized place to find paid work. What may not be obvious at first glance is that, in addition to the work they do for pay, crowd workers also have to shoulder a variety of unpaid invisible labor in these markets, which ultimately reduces workers' hourly wages. Invisible labor includes finding good tasks, messaging requesters, or managing payments. However, we currently know little about how much time crowd workers actually spend on invisible labor or how much it costs them economically. To ensure a fair and equitable future for crowd work, we need to be certain that workers are being paid fairly for ALL of the work they do. In this paper, we conduct a field study to quantify the invisible labor in crowd work. We build a plugin to record the amount of time that 100 workers on Amazon Mechanical Turk dedicate to invisible labor while completing 40,903 tasks. If we ignore the time workers spent on invisible labor, workers' median hourly wage was $3.76. But, we estimated that crowd workers in our study spent 33% of their time daily on invisible labor, dropping their median hourly wage to $2.83. We found that the invisible labor differentially impacts workers depending on their skill level and workers' demographics. The invisible labor category that took the most time and that was also the most common revolved around workers having to manage their payments. The second most time-consuming invisible labor category involved hyper-vigilance, where workers vigilantly watched over requesters' profiles for newly posted work or vigilantly searched for labor. We hope that through our paper, the invisible labor in crowdsourcing becomes more visible, and our results help to reveal the larger implications of the continuing invisibility of labor in crowdsourcing. 

   more » « less
5. What Ingredients Make for an Effective Crowdsourcing Protocol for Difficult NLU Data Collection Tasks?

   Nangia, Nikita ; Sugawara, Saku ; Trivedi, Harsh ; Warstadt, Alex ; Vania, Clara ; Bowman, Samuel R. ( January 2021 , Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics)

   null (Ed.)

   Crowdsourcing is widely used to create data for common natural language understanding tasks. Despite the importance of these datasets for measuring and refining model understanding of language, there has been little focus on the crowdsourcing methods used for collecting the datasets. In this paper, we compare the efficacy of interventions that have been proposed in prior work as ways of improving data quality. We use multiple-choice question answering as a testbed and run a randomized trial by assigning crowdworkers to write questions under one of four different data collection protocols. We find that asking workers to write explanations for their examples is an ineffective stand-alone strategy for boosting NLU example difficulty. However, we find that training crowdworkers, and then using an iterative process of collecting data, sending feedback, and qualifying workers based on expert judgments is an effective means of collecting challenging data. But using crowdsourced, instead of expert judgments, to qualify workers and send feedback does not prove to be effective. We observe that the data from the iterative protocol with expert assessments is more challenging by several measures. Notably, the human--model gap on the unanimous agreement portion of this data is, on average, twice as large as the gap for the baseline protocol data. 

   more » « less