From Labor to Trader: Opinion Elicitation via Online Crowds as a Market

被引:7
|
作者
Cao, Caleb Chen [1 ]
Chen, Lei [1 ]
Jagadish, H., V [2 ]
机构
[1] Hong Kong Univ Sci & Technol, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Crowdsourcing; Human Computation; Social Media; Market; INFORMATION;
D O I
10.1145/2623330.2623717
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
We often care about people's degrees of belief about certain events: e.g. causality between an action and the outcomes, odds distribution among the outcome of a horse race and so on. It is well recognized that the best form to elicit opinion from human is probability distribution instead of simple voting, because the form of distribution retains the delicate information that an opinion expresses. In the past, opinion elicitation has relied on experts, who are expensive and not always available. More recently, crowdsourcing has gained prominence as an inexpensive way to get a great deal of human input. However, traditional crowdsourcing has primarily focused on issuing very simple (e.g. binary decision) tasks to the crowd. In this paper, we study how to use crowds for Opinion Elicitation. There are three major challenges to eliciting opinion information in the form of probability distributions: a) how to measure the quality of distribution; b) how to aggregate the distributions; and, c) how to strategically implement such a system. To address these challenges, we design and implement COPE (Crowd-powered OPinion Elicitation market). COPE models crowdsourced work as a trading market, where the "workers" behave like "traders" to maximize their profit by presenting their opinion. Among the innovative features in this system, we design COPE updating to combine the multiple elicited distributions following a Bayesian scheme. Also to provide more flexibility while running COPE. we propose a series of efficient algorithms and a slope based strategy to manage the ending condition of COPE. We then demonstrate the implementation of COPE and report experimental results running on real commercial platform to demonstrate the practical value of this system.
引用
收藏
页码:1067 / 1076
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] FROM THE LABOR MARKET TO THE EMPLOYMENT MARKET: A NEW REALITY
    Karapetyan, Ruben V.
    Tarando, Elena E.
    SOTSIOLOGICHESKIE ISSLEDOVANIYA, 2023, (07): : 148 - 150
  • [42] Impact of futures' trader types on stock market quality: evidence from Taiwan
    Lai, Ya-Wen
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCE, 2023, 47 (02) : 417 - 436
  • [43] The wisdom of amateur crowds: Evidence from an online community of sports tipsters
    Brown, Alasdair
    Reade, J. James
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2019, 272 (03) : 1073 - 1081
  • [44] Tax Planning Knowledge Diffusion via the Labor Market
    Barrios, John M.
    Gallemore, John
    MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2024, 70 (02) : 1194 - 1215
  • [45] Retail trader sophistication and stock market quality: Evidence from brokerage outages
    Eaton, Gregory W.
    Green, T. Clifton
    Roseman, Brian S.
    Wu, Yanbin
    JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL ECONOMICS, 2022, 146 (02) : 502 - 528
  • [46] The labor market for directors and externalities in corporate governance: Evidence from the international labor market
    Lel, Ugur
    Miller, Darius
    JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 2019, 68 (01):
  • [47] ZIP60: Further Explorations in the Evolutionary Design of Trader Agents and Online Auction-Market Mechanisms
    Cliff, Dave
    IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION, 2009, 13 (01) : 3 - 18
  • [48] Identifying Opinion Leaders from Online Comments
    Chen, Yi
    Wang, Xiaolong
    Tang, Buzhou
    Xu, Ruifeng
    Yuan, Bo
    Xiang, Xin
    Bu, Junzhao
    SOCIAL MEDIA PROCESSING, 2014, 489 : 231 - 239
  • [49] Are Online Samples Credible? Evidence from Risk Elicitation Tests
    John Gibson
    David Johnson
    Atlantic Economic Journal, 2019, 47 : 377 - 379
  • [50] Are Online Samples Credible? Evidence from Risk Elicitation Tests
    Gibson, John
    Johnson, David
    ATLANTIC ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 2019, 47 (03) : 377 - 379