research-article

Incentives for Effort in Crowdsourcing Using the Peer Truth Serum

Authors:

Goran Radanovic,

Radu JurcaAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), Volume 7, Issue 4

Article No.: 48, Pages 1 - 28

https://doi.org/10.1145/2856102

Published: 31 March 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Crowdsourcing is widely proposed as a method to solve a large variety of judgment tasks, such as classifying website content, peer grading in online courses, or collecting real-world data. As the data reported by workers cannot be verified, there is a tendency to report random data without actually solving the task. This can be countered by making the reward for an answer depend on its consistency with answers given by other workers, an approach called peer consistency. However, it is obvious that the best strategy in such schemes is for all workers to report the same answer without solving the task.

Dasgupta and Ghosh [2013] show that, in some cases, exerting high effort can be encouraged in the highest-paying equilibrium. In this article, we present a general mechanism that implements this idea and is applicable to most crowdsourcing settings. Furthermore, we experimentally test the novel mechanism, and validate its theoretical properties.

Supplementary Material

a48-radanovic-apndx.pdf (radanovic.zip)

Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Incentives for Effort in Crowdsourcing Using the Peer Truth Serum

Download
111.98 KB

References

[1]

Luis Von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. 2004. Labeling images with a computer game. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[2]

R. N. Colvile, N. K. Woodfield, D. J. Carruthers, B. E. A. Fisher, A. Rickard, S. Neville, and A. Hughes. 2002. Uncertainty in dispersion modeling and urban air quality mapping. Environmental Science and Policy 5, 207--220.

[3]

Anirban Dasgupta and Arpita Ghosh. 2013. Crowdsourced judgement elicitation with endogenous proficiency. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International World Wide Web Conference (WWW13).

Digital Library

[4]

Boi Faltings, Jason J. Li, and Radu Jurca. 2014a. Incentive mechanisms for community sensing. IEEE Transactions on Computers 63, 115--128.

Digital Library

[5]

Boi Faltings, Pearl Pu, Bao Duy Tran, and Radu Jurca. 2014b. Incentives to counter bias in human computation. In Proceedings of the 2nd AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP'14).

[6]

Xi Alice Gao, Andrew Mao, and Yiling Chen. 2013. Trick or treat: Putting peer prediction to the test. In Workshop on Crowdsourcing and Online Behavioral Experiments, in Conjunction with ACM EC13.

[7]

Florent Garcin and Boi Faltings. 2014. Swissnoise: Online polls with game-theoretic incentives. Proceedings of the 26th Conference on Innovative Applications of AI, 2972--2977.

Digital Library

[8]

Sharad Goel, Daniel M. Reeves, and David M. Pennock. 2009. Collective revelation: A mechanism for self-verified, weighted, and truthful predictions. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC’09).

Digital Library

[9]

Christopher Harris. 2011. You’re hired! An examination of crowdsourcing incentive models in human resource tasks. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Crowdsourcing for Search and Data Mining (CSDM) at the 4th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM’11).

[10]

Shih-Wen Huang and Wai-Tat Fu. 2013a. Don’t hide in the crowd!: Increasing social transparency between peer workers improves crowdsourcing outcomes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Digital Library

[11]

Shih-Wen Huang and Wai-Tat Fu. 2013b. Enhancing reliability using peer consistency evaluation in human computation. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

Digital Library

[12]

Radu Jurca and Boi Faltings. 2009. Mechanisms for making crowds truthful. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 34, 209--253.

Digital Library

[13]

Radu Jurca and Boi Faltings. 2011. Incentives for answering hypothetical questions. In Workshop on Social Computing and User Generated Content (EC’11).

[14]

Ece Kamar and Eric Horvitz. 2012. Incentives for truthful reporting in crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS'12).

Digital Library

[15]

Nicolas Lambert and Yoav Shoham. 2008. Truthful surveys. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE’08).

Digital Library

[16]

Nolan Miller, Paul Resnick, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2005. Eliciting informative feedback: The peer-prediction method. Management Science 51, 1359--1373.

Digital Library

[17]

Athanasios Papakonstantinou, Alex Rogers, Enrico Gerding, and Nicholas Jennings. 2011. Mechanism design for the truthful elicitation of costly probabilistic estimates in distributed information systems. Artificial Intelligence 175, 648--672.

Digital Library

[18]

Drazen Prelec. 2004. A bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science 34, 5695 (2004), 462--466.

[19]

Drazen Prelec and Sebastian Seung. 2006. An algorithm that finds truth even if most people are wrong. Working paper.

[20]

Goran Radanovic and Boi Faltings. 2013. A robust Bayesian truth serum for non-binary signals. In Proceedings of the 27th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’13).

Digital Library

[21]

Goran Radanovic and Boi Faltings. 2014. Incentives for truthful information elicitation of continuous signals. In Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’14).

Digital Library

[22]

Goran Radanovic and Boi Faltings. 2015a. Incentive schemes for participatory sensing. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’15).

Digital Library

[23]

Goran Radanovic and Boi Faltings. 2015b. Incentives for subjective evaluations with private beliefs. In Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’15).

Digital Library

[24]

Aaron Shaw, Daniel L. Chen, and John Horton. 2011. Designing incentives for inexpert human raters. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’11).

Digital Library

[25]

Adish Singla and Andreas Krause. 2013. Truthful incentives in crowdsourcing tasks using regret minimization mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web.

Digital Library

[26]

Hossein Azari Soufiani, David C. Parkes, and Lirong Xia. 2012. Random utility theory for social choice. In Proceedings of Neural Information Processing Systems.

Digital Library

[27]

Bo Waggoner and Yiling Chen. 2013. Information elicitation sans verification. In Information Elicitation Sans Verification. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Social Computing and User Generated Content (SC’13).

[28]

Bo Waggoner and Yiling Chen. 2014. Output agreement mechanisms and common knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2nd AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP’14).

[29]

Jens Witkowski, Yoram Bachrach, Peter Key, and David C. Parkes. 2013. Dwelling on the negative: Incentivizing effort in peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 1st AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing.

[30]

Jens Witkowski and David C. Parkes. 2012a. Peer prediction without a common prior. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC’12). 964--981.

Digital Library

[31]

Jens Witkowski and David C. Parkes. 2012b. A robust Bayesian truth serum for small populations. In Proceedings of the 26th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI’12).

Digital Library

[32]

Jens Witkowski and David C. Parkes. 2013. Learning the prior in minimal peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Social Computing and User Generated Content (SC'13).

[33]

Peter Zhang and Yiling Chen. 2014. Elicitability and knowledge-free elicitation with peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’14).

Digital Library

Cited By

Kong Y(2024)Dominantly Truthful Peer Prediction Mechanisms with a Finite Number of TasksJournal of the ACM10.1145/363823971:2(1-49)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3638239
Xu SZhang YResnick PSchoenebeck GChua TNgo CKa-Wei Lee RKumar RLauw H(2024)Spot Check Equivalence: An Interpretable Metric for Information Elicitation MechanismsProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645679(276-287)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3589334.3645679
Witt LZafar UShen KSattler FLi DWang SSamek W(2024)Decentralized and Incentivized Federated Learning: A Blockchain-Enabled Framework Utilising Compressed Soft-Labels and Peer ConsistencyIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2023.333698017:4(1449-1464)Online publication date: Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2023.3336980
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Incentives for Effort in Crowdsourcing Using the Peer Truth Serum
1. Applied computing
  1. Law, social and behavioral sciences

Recommendations

Crowdsourced judgement elicitation with endogenous proficiency
WWW '13: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web

Crowdsourcing is now widely used to replace judgement or evaluation by an expert authority with an aggregate evaluation from a number of non-experts, in applications ranging from rating and categorizing online content all the way to evaluation of ...
Truthful Team Formation for Crowdsourcing in Social Networks: (Extended Abstract)
AAMAS '16: Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems

This paper studies complex task crowdsourcing by team formation in social networks (SNs), where the requester wishes to hire a group of socially connected workers that can work together as a team. Previous social team crowdsourcing approaches mainly ...
Putting Peer Prediction Under the Microeconomicscope and Making Truth-Telling Focal
WINE 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics - Volume 10123

Peer-predictionï ź[19] is a meta-mechanism which, given any proper scoring rule, produces a mechanism to elicit prie information from self-interested agents. Formally, truth-telling is a strict Nash equilibrium of the mechanism. Unfortunately, there may ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology

ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology Volume 7, Issue 4

Special Issue on Crowd in Intelligent Systems, Research Note/Short Paper and Regular Papers

July 2016

498 pages

ISSN:2157-6904

EISSN:2157-6912

DOI:10.1145/2906145

Editor:
Yu Zheng
Microsoft Research, China

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2016 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: 31 March 2016

Accepted: 01 November 2015

Revised: 01 August 2015

Received: 01 January 2015

Published in TIST Volume 7, Issue 4

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

Nano-Tera.ch as part of the Opensense2 project

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

60
Total Citations
View Citations
799
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)57
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7

Reflects downloads up to 19 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kong Y(2024)Dominantly Truthful Peer Prediction Mechanisms with a Finite Number of TasksJournal of the ACM10.1145/363823971:2(1-49)Online publication date: 10-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3638239
Xu SZhang YResnick PSchoenebeck GChua TNgo CKa-Wei Lee RKumar RLauw H(2024)Spot Check Equivalence: An Interpretable Metric for Information Elicitation MechanismsProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589334.3645679(276-287)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3589334.3645679
Witt LZafar UShen KSattler FLi DWang SSamek W(2024)Decentralized and Incentivized Federated Learning: A Blockchain-Enabled Framework Utilising Compressed Soft-Labels and Peer ConsistencyIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2023.333698017:4(1449-1464)Online publication date: Jul-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2023.3336980
Liu YZheng ZWu FChen G(2024)When Crowdsourcing Meets Data Markets: A Fair Data Value Metric for Data TradingJournal of Computer Science and Technology10.1007/s11390-023-2519-039:3(671-690)Online publication date: 1-May-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11390-023-2519-0
Bose ALi TSinha AMai TWilliams BChen YNeville J(2023)A fair incentive scheme for community health workersProceedings of the Thirty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Fifth Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Thirteenth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence10.1609/aaai.v37i12.26653(14127-14135)Online publication date: 7-Feb-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1609/aaai.v37i12.26653
Kamble VShah NMarn DParekh ARamchandran K(2023)The Square Root Agreement Rule for Incentivizing Truthful Feedback on Online PlatformsManagement Science10.1287/mnsc.2022.437569:1(377-403)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4375
Liu YLou RWei J(2023)Auditing for Federated Learning: A Model Elicitation ApproachProceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Distributed Artificial Intelligence10.1145/3627676.3627683(1-9)Online publication date: 30-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3627676.3627683
Timko CNiederstadt MGoel NFaltings B(2023)Incentive Mechanism Design for Responsible Data Governance: A Large-scale Field ExperimentJournal of Data and Information Quality10.1145/359261715:2(1-18)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3592617
Burrell NSchoenebeck GLeyton-Brown KSamuelson LHartline J(2023)Measurement Integrity in Peer Prediction: A Peer Assessment Case StudyProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3580507.3597744(369-389)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3580507.3597744
Liu YWang JChen Y(2023)Surrogate Scoring RulesACM Transactions on Economics and Computation10.1145/356555910:3(1-36)Online publication date: 15-Feb-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3565559
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

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

Full Access

Get this Article

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents