AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
Powered by AMiner. Clicking this button will take you away from SciOpen.
Home Journal of Computer Science and Technology Article
Article Link
Cite
EndNote(RIS) BibTeX
Collect
Submit Manuscript
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Regular Paper

Collusion-Proof Result Inference in Crowdsourcing

State Key Laboratory of Software Development Environment, School of Computer Science and Engineering Beihang University, Beijing 100191, China
Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Big Data and Brain Computing, Beijing 100191, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

In traditional crowdsourcing, workers are expected to provide independent answers to tasks so as to ensure the diversity of answers. However, recent studies show that the crowd is not a collection of independent workers, but instead that workers communicate and collaborate with each other. To pursue more rewards with little effort, some workers may collude to provide repeated answers, which will damage the quality of the aggregated results. Nonetheless, there are few efforts considering the negative impact of collusion on result inference in crowdsourcing. In this paper, we are specially concerned with the Collusion-Proof result inference problem for general crowdsourcing tasks in public platforms. To that end, we design a metric, the worker performance change rate, to identify the colluded answers by computing the difference of the mean worker performance before and after removing the repeated answers. Then we incorporate the collusion detection result into existing result inference methods to guarantee the quality of the aggregated results even with the occurrence of collusion behaviors. With real-world and synthetic datasets, we conducted an extensive set of evaluations of our approach. The experimental results demonstrate the superiority of our approach in comparison with the state-of-the-art methods.

Keywords

crowdsourcingquality controlcollusioncollaborative crowdsourcingresult inference

Electronic Supplementary Material

Download File(s)
jcst-33-2-351-Highlights.pdf (221.5 KB)

References

[1]

Li G L, Wang J N, Zheng Y D, Franklin M J. Crowdsourced data management: A survey. IEEE Trans. Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2016, 28(9): 2296-2319.
Crossref Google Scholar
[2]
Chen L, Lee D, Milo T. Data-driven crowdsourcing: Management, mining, and applications. In Proc. the 31st Int. Conf. Data Engineering, April 2015, pp.1527-1529.
Crossref
[3]
Deng J, Dong W, Socher R et al. ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In Proc. IEEE Conf. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2009, pp.248-255.
Crossref
[4]

Liu X, Lu M Y, Ooi B C, Shen Y Y, Wu S, Zhang M H. CDAS: A crowdsourcing data analytics system. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2012, 5(10): 1040-1051.
Crossref Google Scholar
[5]
Fang Y L, Sun H L, Li G L, Zhang R C, Huai J P. Effective result inference for context-sensitive tasks in crowdsourcing. In Proc. the 21st Int. Conf. Database Systems for Advanced Applications, April 2016, pp.33-48.
Crossref
[6]

von Ahn L, Maurer B, McMillen C, Abraham D, Blum M. reCAPTCHA: Human-based character recognition via web security measures. Science, 2008, 321(5895): 1465-1468.
Crossref Google Scholar
[7]
Fang Y L, Sun H L, Zhang R C, Huai J P, Mao Y Y. A model for aggregating contributions of synergistic crowdsourcing workflows. In Proc. the 28th AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence, July 2014, pp.3102-3103.
Crossref
[8]
Zaidan O F, Callison-Burch C. Crowdsourcing translation: Professional quality from non-professionals. In Proc. the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, June 2011, pp.1220-1229.
[9]

Bernstein M S, Little G, Miller R C, Hartmann B, Ackerman M S, Karger D R, Crowell D, Panovich K. Soylent: A word processor with a crowd inside. Communications of the ACM, 2015, 58(8): 85-94.
Crossref Google Scholar
[10]
Zhu Y S, Yue S C, Yu C, Shi Y C. CEPT: Collaborative editing tool for non-native authors. In Proc. ACM Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, February 25-March 1, 2017, pp.273-285.
Crossref
[11]
Nebeling M, To A, Guo A H, De Freitas A A, Teevan J, Dow S P, Bigham J P. WearWrite: Crowd-assisted writing from smartwatches. In Proc. CHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 2016, pp.3834-3846.
Crossref
[12]
Gray M L, Suri S, Ali S S, Kulkarni D. The crowd is a collaborative network. In Proc. the 19th ACM Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, February 27-March 2, 2016, pp.134-147.
Crossref
[13]
Yin M, Gray M L, Suri S, Vaughan J W. The communication network within the crowd. In Proc. the 25th Int. Conf. World Wide Web, April 2016, pp.1293-1303.
Crossref
[14]
Salehi N, McCabe A, Valentine M, Bernstein M. Huddler: Convening stable and familiar crowd teams despite unpredictable availability. In Proc. ACM Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, February 25-March 1, 2017, pp.1700-1713.
Crossref
[15]
Gadiraju U, Kawase R, Dietze S, Demartini G. Understanding malicious behavior in crowdsourcing platforms: The case of online surveys. In Proc. the 33rd Annual ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 2015, pp.1631-1640.
Crossref
[16]

Sodré I, Brasileiro F. An analysis of the use of qualifications on the Amazon mechanical Turk online labor market. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2017, 26(4/5/6): 837-872.
Crossref Google Scholar
[17]
Chang J C, Amershi S, Kamar E. Revolt: Collaborative crowdsourcing for labeling machine learning datasets. In Proc. CHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 2017, pp.2334-2346.
Crossref
[18]
Wang G, Wilson C, Zhao X H, Zhu Y B, Mohanlal M, Zheng H T, Zhao B Y. Serf and turf: Crowdturfing for fun and profit. In Proc. the 21st Int. Conf. World Wide Web, April 2012, pp.679-688.
Crossref
[19]

Adams S A. Maintaining the collision of accounts: Crowdsourcing sites in health care as brokers in the co-production of pharmaceutical knowledge. Information Communication & Society, 2014, 17(6): 657-669.
Crossref Google Scholar
[20]
Douceur J R. The Sybil attack. In Proc. the 1st Int. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, March 2002, pp.251-260.
Crossref
[21]
Lev O, Polukarov M, Bachrach Y, Rosenschein J S. Mergers and collusion in all-pay auctions and crowdsourcing contests. In Proc. Int. Conf. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, May 2013, pp.675-682.
[22]
KhudaBukhsh A R, Carbonell J G, Jansen P J. Detecting non-adversarial collusion in crowdsourcing. In Proc. the 2nd AAAI Conf. Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, November 2014, pp.104-111.
Crossref
[23]
Xiang Q K, Nevat I, Zhang P F, Zhang J. Collusionresistant spatial phenomena crowdsourcing via mixture of Gaussian processes regression. In Proc. the 18th Int. Conf. Trust in Agent Societies, May 2016, pp.30-41.
[24]
Fang Y L, Chen P P, Sun K, Sun H L. A decision tree based quality control framework for multi-phase tasks in crowdsourcing. In Proc. the 12th Chinese Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, September 2017, pp.10-17.
Crossref
[25]

Fang Y L, Sun H L, Chen P P, Deng T. Improving the quality of crowdsourced image labeling via label similarity. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2017, 32(5): 877-889.
Crossref Google Scholar
[26]
Sheng V S, Provost F, Ipeirotis P G. Get another label? Improving data quality and data mining using multiple, noisy labelers. In Proc. the 14th ACM SIGKDD Int. Conf. Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, August 2008, pp.614-622.
Crossref
[27]
Snow R, O’Connor B, Jurafsky D, Ng A Y. Cheap and fast-but is it good?: Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In Proc. Conf. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, October 2008, pp.254-263.
Crossref
[28]

Dawid A P, Skene A M. Maximum likelihood estimation of observer error-rates using the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 1979, 28(1): 20-28.
Crossref Google Scholar
[29]

Raykar V C, Yu S P, Zhao L H, Valadez G H, Florin C, Bogoni L, Moy L. Learning from crowds. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2010, 11: 1297-1322.
Google Scholar
[30]
Gao C, Lu Y, Zhou D Y. Exact exponent in optimal rates for crowdsourcing. In Proc. the 33rd Int. Conf. Machine Learning, June 2016, pp.603-611.
[31]
Whitehill J, Ruvolo P, Wu T, Bergsma J, Movellan J. Whose vote should count more: Optimal integration of labels from labelers of unknown expertise. In Proc. the 22nd Int. Conf. Neural Information Processing Systems, December 2009, pp.2035-2043.
[32]

Garcia-Molina H, Joglekar M, Marcus A, Parameswaran A, Verroios V. Challenges in data crowdsourcing. IEEE Trans Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2016, 28(4): 901-911.
Crossref Google Scholar
[33]
Shin H, Park T, Kang S, Lee B, Song J, Chon Y, Cha H. CoSMiC: Designing a mobile crowd-sourced collaborative application to find a missing child in situ. In Proc. the 16th Int. Conf. Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, September 2014, pp.389-398.
Crossref
[34]
Ambati V, Vogel S, Carbonell J. Collaborative workflow for crowdsourcing translation. In Proc. ACM Conf. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, February 2012, pp.1191-1194.
Crossref
[35]
Teevan J, Iqbal S T, Von Veh C. Supporting collaborative writing with microtasks. In Proc. CHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 2016, pp.2657-2668.
Crossref
[36]
Rahman H, Roy S B, Thirumuruganathan S, Amer-Yahia S, Das G. Task assignment optimization in collaborative crowdsourcing. In Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Data Mining, November 2015, pp.949-954.
Crossref
[37]

Torshiz M N, Amintoosi H. Collusion-resistant worker selection in social crowdsensing systems. Journal of Computer and Knowledge Engineering, 2017, 1(1): 9-20.
Google Scholar
[38]
Celis L E, Reddy S P, Singh I P, Vaya S. Assignment techniques for crowdsourcing sensitive tasks. In Proc. the 19th ACM Conf. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, February 27-March 2, 2016, pp.836-847.
Crossref
[39]
Wang L, Zhou Z H. Cost-saving effect of crowdsourcing learning. In Proc. the 25th Int. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence, July 2016, pp.2111-2117.
[40]
Welinder P, Branson S, Belongie S, Perona P. The multidimensional wisdom of crowds. In Proc. the 23rd Int. Conf. Neural Information Processing Systems, December 2010, pp.2424-2432.
[41]
Ipeirotis P G, Provost F, Wang J. Quality management on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proc. ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation, July 2010, pp.64-67.
Crossref
Journal of Computer Science and Technology
Volume 33 Issue 2,
March 2018
Pages 351-365
DOI: 10.1007/s11390-018-1823-6
Cite this article:
Chen P-P, Sun H-L, Fang Y-L, et al. Collusion-Proof Result Inference in Crowdsourcing. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 2018, 33(2): 351-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-018-1823-6

363

Views

10

Crossref

N/A

Web of Science

17

Scopus

2

CSCD

Altmetrics
Received: 17 April 2017
Revised: 29 January 2018
Published: 23 March 2018
©2018 LLC & Science Press, China
Return