With the increasing popularity of crowdsourcing and crowd computing, the question of how to select a well-performing crowd process for a problem at hand is growing ever more important. Prior work casted crowd process selection to an optimization problem, whose solution is the crowd process performing best for a user's problem. However, existing approaches require users to probabilistically model aspects of the problem, which may entail a substantial investment of time and may be error-prone. We propose to use black-box optimization instead, a family of techniques that do not require probabilistic modelling by the end user. Specifically, we adopt Bayesian Optimization to approximate the maximum of a utility function quantifying the user's (business-) objectives while minimizing search cost. Our approach is validated in a simulation and three real-world experiments. The black-box nature of our approach may enable us to reduce the entry barrier for efficiently building crowdsourcing solutions.
Crowdsourcing is increasingly being adopted to solve simple tasks such as image labeling and object tagging, as well as more complex tasks, where crowd workers collaborate in processes with interdependent steps. For the whole range of complexity, research has yielded numerous patterns for coordinating crowd workers in order to optimize crowd accuracy, efficiency, and cost. Process designers, however, often don't know which pattern to apply to a problem at hand when designing new applications for crowdsourcing.In this article, we propose to solve this problem by systematically exploring the design space of complex crowdsourced tasks via automated recombination and auto-experimentation for an issue at hand. Specifically, we propose an approach to finding the optimal process for a given problem by defining the deep structure of the problem in terms of its abstract operators, generating all possible alternatives via the (re)combination of the abstract deep structure with concrete implementations from a Process Repository, and then establishing the best alternative via auto-experimentation.To evaluate our approach, we implemented PPLib (pronounced "People Lib"), a program library that allows for the automated recombination of known processes stored in an easily extensible Process Repository. We evaluated our work by generating and running a plethora of process candidates in two scenarios on Amazon's Mechanical Turk followed by a meta-evaluation, where we looked at the differences between the two evaluations. Our first scenario addressed the problem of text translation, where our automatic recombination produced multiple processes whose performance almost matched the benchmark established by an expert translation. In our second evaluation, we focused on text shortening; we automatically generated 41 crowd process candidates, among them variations of the well-established Find-Fix-Verify process. While Find-Fix-Verify performed well in this setting, our recombination engine produced five processes that repeatedly yielded better results. We close the article by comparing the two settings where the Recombinator was used, and empirically show that the individual processes performed differently in the two settings, which led us to contend that there is no unifying formula, hence emphasizing the necessity for recombination. ACM Reference Format:Patrick M. de Boer and Abraham Bernstein. 2016. PPLib: Toward the automated generation of crowd computing programs using process recombination and auto-experimentation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.