Evaluating design ideas is necessary to predict their success and assess their impact early on in the process. Existing methods rely either on metrics computed by systems that are effective but subject to errors and bias, or experts' ratings, which are accurate but expensive and long to collect. Crowdsourcing offers a compelling way to evaluate a large number of design ideas in a short amount of time while being cost-effective. Workers' evaluation is, however, less reliable and might substantially differ from experts' evaluation. In this work, we investigate workers' rating behavior and compare it with experts. First, we instrument a crowdsourcing study where we asked workers to evaluate design ideas from three innovation challenges. We show that workers share similar insights with experts but tend to rate more generously and weigh certain criteria more importantly. Next, we develop a hybrid human-AI approach that combines a machine learning model with crowdsourcing to evaluate ideas. Our approach models workers' reliability and bias while leveraging ideas' textual content to train a machine learning model. It is able to incorporate experts' ratings whenever available, to supervise the model training and infer worker performance. Results show that our framework outperforms baseline methods and requires significantly less training data from experts, thus providing a viable solution for evaluating ideas at scale.

@en

Scientific peer review is pivotal to maintain quality standards for academic publication. The effectiveness of the reviewing process is currently being challenged by the rapid increase of paper submissions in various conferences. Those venues need to recruit a large number of reviewers of different levels of expertise and background. The submitted reviews often do not meet the conformity standards of the conferences. Such a situation poses an ever-bigger burden on the meta-reviewers when trying to reach a final decision. In this work, we propose a human-AI approach that estimates the conformity of reviews to the conference standards. Specifically, we ask peers to grade each other's reviews anonymously with respect to important criteria of review conformity such as sufficient justification and objectivity. We introduce a Bayesian framework that learns the conformity of reviews from both the peer grading process, historical reviews and decisions of a conference, while taking into account grading reliability. Our approach helps meta-reviewers easily identify reviews that require clarification and detect submissions requiring discussions while not inducing additional overhead from reviewers. Through a large-scale crowdsourced study where crowd workers are recruited as graders, we show that the proposed approach outperforms machine learning or review grades alone and that it can be easily integrated into existing peer review systems.

@en

Explainability is a key requirement for text classification in many application domains ranging from sentiment analysis to medical diagnosis or legal reviews. Existing methods often rely on "attention" mechanisms for explaining classification results by estimating the relative importance of input units. However, recent studies have shown that such mechanisms tend to mis-identify irrelevant input units in their explanation. In this work, we propose a hybrid human-AI approach that incorporates human rationales into attention-based text classification models to improve the explainability of classification results. Specifically, we ask workers to provide rationales for their annotation by selecting relevant pieces of text. We introduce MARTA, a Bayesian framework that jointly learns an attention-based model and the reliability of workers while injecting human rationales into model training. We derive a principled optimization algorithm based on variational inference with efficient updating rules for learning MARTA parameters. Extensive validation on real-world datasets shows that our framework significantly improves the state of the art both in terms of classification explainability and accuracy. @en

Finding social influencers is a fundamental task in many online applications ranging from brand marketing to opinion mining. Existing methods heavily rely on the availability of expert labels, whose collection is usually a laborious process even for domain experts. Using open-ended questions, crowdsourcing provides a cost-effective way to find a large number of social influencers in a short time. Individual crowd workers, however, only possess fragmented knowledge that is often of low quality. To tackle those issues, we present OpenCrowd, a unified Bayesian framework that seamlessly incorporates machine learning and crowdsourcing for effectively finding social influencers. To infer a set of influencers, OpenCrowd bootstraps the learning process using a small number of expert labels and then jointly learns a feature-based answer quality model and the reliability of the workers. Model parameters and worker reliability are updated iteratively, allowing their learning processes to benefit from each other until an agreement on the quality of the answers is reached. We derive a principled optimization algorithm based on variational inference with efficient updating rules for learning OpenCrowd parameters. Experimental results on finding social influencers in different domains show that our approach substantially improves the state of the art by 11.5% AUC. Moreover, we empirically show that our approach is particularly useful in finding micro-influencers, who are very directly engaged with smaller audiences.@en