task and workflow design i kse 801 uichin lee. turkit: human computation algorithms on mechanical...
TRANSCRIPT
Task and Workflow Design I
KSE 801Uichin Lee
TurKit: Human Computation Algorithms on Mechanical Turk
Greg Little, Lydia B. Chilton, Rob Miller, and Max Goldman
(MIT CSAIL)UIST 2010
Workflow in M-Turk
HIT
HIT
HIT
HIT
HIT
HIT
Data Collected
in CSV File
Requester posts HIT Groups to
Mechanical Turk
Data Exported for Use
Workflow: Pros & Cons
• Easy to run simple, parallelized tasks.• Not so easy to run tasks in which turkers
improve on or validate each others’ work.
• TurKit to the rescue!
The TurKit Toolkit
• Arrows indicate the flow of information.
• Programmer writes 2 sets of source code:– HTML files for web
servers– JavaScript executed by
TurKit
• Output is retrieved via a JavaScript database.
Turkers
Mechanical Turk
Web Server TurKit
*.html *.js
Programmer
JavaScript Database
Crash-and-rerun programming model
• Observation: local computation is cheap, but the external class cost money
• Managing states over a long running program is challenging– Examples: Computer restarts? Errors?
• Solution: store states in the database (in case)• If an error happens, just crash the program and re-run by
following the history in DB– Throw a “crash” exception; the script is automatically re-run.
• New keyword “once”: – Remove non-determinism– Don’t need to re-execute an expensive operation (when re-run)
• But why should we re-run???
Example: quicksort
Parallelism
• First time the script runs, HITs A and C will be created
• For a given forked branch, if a task fails (e.g., HIT A), TurKit crashes the forked branch (and re-run)
• Synchronization w/ join()
MTurk Functions
• Prompt(message, # of people)– mturk.prompt("What is your favorite color?", 100)
• Voting(message, options)• Sort(message, items)
VOTE() SORT()
TurKit: Implementation
• TurKit: Java using Rhino to interpret JavaScript code, and E4X2 to handle XML results from MTurk
• IDE: Google App Engine3 (GAE)
Online IDE
Exploring Iterative and Parallel Human Computation Processes
Greg Little, Lydia B. ChiltonMax Goldman, Robert C. Miller
HCOMP 2010
HC Task Model
• Dimension: – Dependent (iterative) or independent (parallel) tasks – Creation and decision tasks
• Task model examples
Creation tasks (creating new content): e.g., writing ideas,
imagery solutions, etc.
Decision tasks (voting/rating): e.g., rating the quality of a description of
an image
HC Task Model
• Combining tasks: iterative and parallel tasks
Iterative pattern: a sequence of creation tasks where the result of each task feeds into the next one, followed by a comparison task
Parallel pattern: a set of creation tasks executed in parallel, followed by a task of choosing the best
Experiment: Writing Image Description
• Iterative vs. parallel; each 6 creation tasks ($0.02), followed by rating tasks (1-10 scale, $0.01)
Experiment: Writing Image Description
• Turkers in iterative condition gave better description while parallel condition always shows an empty text area.
Experiment: Writing Image Description
• Average rating after n iterations– After six iterations: 7.9 vs. 7.4, t-test T29=2.1, p=0.04
iterative
parallel
Experiment: Writing Image Description
• Length vs. rating: positive correlation
• The two outliers (circled) represent instances of text copied from the Internet (with superficial description)
Length (characters)
Ratin
g
Experiment: Writing Image Description
• Work Quality:– 31% mainly append content at the end, and make only minor
modifications (if any) to existing content; – 27% modify/expand existing content, but it is evident that they use
the provided description as a basis;– 17% seem to ignore the provided description entirely and start over;– 13% mostly trim or remove content; – 11% make very small changes (adding a word, fixing a misspelling,
etc);– 1% copy-paste superficially related content found on the internet.
• Creating vs. improving (takes about the same time, avg. 211 seconds)
Experiment: Brainstorming
Experiment: Brainstorming
• Iterative work: higher average rating– Biased thinking: e.g., tech -> xxtech -> yytech
• Parallel work: diversity, higher deviation (rating) – No iteration for brainstorming
Iteration Rating
Avg.
Rati
ng
iterative
parallel
Example: Blurry Text Recognition
Example: Blurry Text Recognition
• Iterative performs better than parallel
Iteration
Accu
racy
Summary
• TurKit: a flexible programming tool for m-turk
• Various work-flow can be designed; e.g., iterative, parallel, and hybrid
• Iterative performs better than parallel in several cases (e.g., image description, brainstorming, text recognition)