Quanze Chen

Quanze Chen, Daniel S. Weld, Amy X. Zhang

Human ratings have become a crucial resource for training and evaluating machine learning systems. However, traditional elicitation methods for absolute and comparative rating suffer from issues with consistency and often do not distinguish between uncertainty due to disagreement between annotators and ambiguity inherent to the item being rated. In this work, we present Goldilocks, a novel crowd rating elicitation technique for collecting calibrated scalar annotations that also distinguishes inherent ambiguity from inter-annotator disagreement. We introduce two main ideas: grounding absolute rating scales with examples and using a two-step bounding process to establish a range for an item's placement. We test our designs in three domains: judging toxicity of online comments, estimating satiety of food depicted in images, and estimating age based on portraits. We show that (1) Goldilocks can improve consistency in domains where interpretation of the scale is not universal, and that (2) representing items with ranges lets us simultaneously capture different sources of uncertainty leading to better estimates of pairwise relationship distributions.

Quanze Chen, Jonathan Bragg, Lydia B. Chilton et al.

Traditional approaches for ensuring high quality crowdwork have failed to achieve high-accuracy on difficult problems. Aggregating redundant answers often fails on the hardest problems when the majority is confused. Argumentation has been shown to be effective in mitigating these drawbacks. However, existing argumentation systems only support limited interactions and show workers general justifications, not context-specific arguments targeted to their reasoning. This paper presents Cicero, a new workflow that improves crowd accuracy on difficult tasks by engaging workers in multi-turn, contextual discussions through real-time, synchronous argumentation. Our experiments show that compared to previous argumentation systems which only improve the average individual worker accuracy by 6.8 percentage points on the Relation Extraction domain, our workflow achieves 16.7 percentage point improvement. Furthermore, previous argumentation approaches don't apply to tasks with many possible answers; in contrast, Cicero works well in these cases, raising accuracy from 66.7% to 98.8% on the Codenames domain.