Accounting for Confirmation Bias in Crowdsourced Label Aggregation

Abstract

Collecting large-scale human-annotated datasets via crowdsourcing to train and improve automated models is a prominent human-in-the-loop approach to integrate human and machine intelligence. However, together with their unique intelligence, humans also come with their biases and subjective beliefs, which may influence the quality of the annotated data and negatively impact the effectiveness of the human-in-the-loop systems. One of the most common types of cognitive biases that humans are subject to is the confirmation bias, which is people's tendency to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs and values. In this paper, we present an algorithmic approach to infer the correct answers of tasks by aggregating the annotations from multiple crowd workers, while taking workers' various levels of confirmation bias into consideration. Evaluations on real-world crowd annotations show that the proposed bias-aware label aggregation algorithm outperforms baseline methods in accurately inferring the ground-truth labels of different tasks when crowd workers indeed exhibit some degree of confirmation bias. Through simulations on synthetic data, we further identify the conditions when the proposed algorithm has the largest advantages over baseline methods.