IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v31y2022i4d10.1007_s10726-022-09783-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

BargCrEx: A System for Bargaining Based Aggregation of Crowd and Expert Opinions in Crowdsourcing

Author

Listed:
  • Ana Vukicevic

    (University of Belgrade
    Saga New Frontier Group ltd)

  • Milan Vukicevic

    (University of Belgrade)

  • Sandro Radovanovic

    (University of Belgrade)

  • Boris Delibasic

    (University of Belgrade)

Abstract

Crowdsourcing and crowd voting systems are being increasingly used in societal, industry, and academic problems (labeling, recommendations, social choice, etc.) due to their possibility to exploit “wisdom of crowd” and obtain good quality solutions, and/or voter satisfaction, with high cost-efficiency. However, the decisions based on crowd vote aggregation do not guarantee high-quality results due to crowd voter data quality. Additionally, such decisions often do not satisfy the majority of voters due to data heterogeneity (multimodal or uniform vote distributions) and/or outliers, which cause traditional aggregation procedures (e.g., central tendency measures) to propose decisions with low voter satisfaction. In this research, we propose a system for the integration of crowd and expert knowledge in a crowdsourcing setting with limited resources. The system addresses the problem of sparse voting data by using machine learning models (matrix factorization and regression) for the estimation of crowd and expert votes/grades. The problem of vote aggregation under multimodal or uniform vote distributions is addressed by the inclusion of expert votes and aggregation of crowd and expert votes based on optimization and bargaining models (Kalai–Smorodinsky and Nash) usually used in game theory. Experimental evaluation on real world and artificial problems showed that the bargaining-based aggregation outperforms the traditional methods in terms of cumulative satisfaction of experts and crowd. Additionally, the machine learning models showed satisfactory predictive performance and enabled cost reduction in the process of vote collection.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana Vukicevic & Milan Vukicevic & Sandro Radovanovic & Boris Delibasic, 2022. "BargCrEx: A System for Bargaining Based Aggregation of Crowd and Expert Opinions in Crowdsourcing," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 789-818, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:31:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-022-09783-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-022-09783-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-022-09783-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-022-09783-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Erratum--Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 309-310, February.
    2. Larry Samuelson, 2016. "Game Theory in Economics and Beyond," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 107-130, Fall.
    3. Thomson, William, 1994. "Cooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 35, pages 1237-1284, Elsevier.
    4. Eric van Damme, 1984. "The Nash Bargaining Solution is Optimal," Discussion Papers 597, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    5. Damme, Eric van, 1986. "The Nash bargaining solution is optimal," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 78-100, February.
    6. Devari, Aashwinikumar & Nikolaev, Alexander G. & He, Qing, 2017. "Crowdsourcing the last mile delivery of online orders by exploiting the social networks of retail store customers," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 105-122.
    7. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2019. "Egalitarianism, utilitarianism, and the Nash bargaining solution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(4), pages 741-751, April.
    8. Friedman, Jerome H., 2002. "Stochastic gradient boosting," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 367-378, February.
    9. Marc Keuschnigg & Christian Ganser, 2017. "Crowd Wisdom Relies on Agents’ Ability in Small Groups with a Voting Aggregation Rule," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 818-828, March.
    10. Richard P. Larrick & Jack B. Soll, 2006. "Intuitions About Combining Opinions: Misappreciation of the Averaging Principle," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 111-127, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Henner Gimpel & Vanessa Graf-Seyfried & Robert Laubacher & Oliver Meindl, 2023. "Towards Artificial Intelligence Augmenting Facilitation: AI Affordances in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 75-124, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Naeve-Steinweg, Elisabeth, 2002. "Mechanisms supporting the Kalai-Smorodinsky solution," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 25-36, September.
    2. Patrick Afflerbach & Christopher Dun & Henner Gimpel & Dominik Parak & Johannes Seyfried, 2021. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Wisdom of Crowds Phenomenon in Aggregating Expert Judgment," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(4), pages 329-348, August.
    3. Christian Ganser & Marc Keuschnigg, 2018. "Social Influence Strengthens Crowd Wisdom Under Voting," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(06n07), pages 1-23, September.
    4. Claus-Jochen Haake & Walter Trockel, 2020. "Introduction to the Special Issue “Bargaining”," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 1-6, November.
    5. William Thomson, 2022. "On the axiomatic theory of bargaining: a survey of recent results," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(4), pages 491-542, December.
    6. Oliver Merz & Raphael Flepp & Egon Franck, 2021. "Underestimating randomness: Outcome bias in betting exchange markets," Working Papers 390, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW).
    7. Joan Esteban & Jozsef Sakovics, 1999. "Why do lions get the lion's share? A Hobbesian theory of agreements," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 37, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    8. Naeve-Steinweg, E., 2004. "The averaging mechanism," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 410-424, February.
    9. Carmen Herrero & Juan Moreno-Ternero & Giovanni Ponti, 2010. "On the adjudication of conflicting claims: an experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 34(1), pages 145-179, January.
    10. Anthropelos, Michail & Boonen, Tim J., 2020. "Nash equilibria in optimal reinsurance bargaining," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 196-205.
    11. Armstrong, J. Scott & Green, Kesten C. & Graefe, Andreas, 2015. "Golden rule of forecasting: Be conservative," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1717-1731.
    12. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    13. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    14. Atanasov, Pavel & Witkowski, Jens & Ungar, Lyle & Mellers, Barbara & Tetlock, Philip, 2020. "Small steps to accuracy: Incremental belief updaters are better forecasters," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 19-35.
    15. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:4:p:395-411 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Gino, Francesca, 2008. "Do we listen to advice just because we paid for it? The impact of advice cost on its use," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 234-245, November.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:2:p:91-105 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Chartier, Christopher R. & Abele, Susanne, 2017. "Groups outperform individuals in tacit coordination by using consensual and disjunctive salience," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 74-81.
    19. Hathout, Michel & Vuillet, Marc & Carvajal, Claudio & Peyras, Laurent & Diab, Youssef, 2019. "Expert judgments calibration and combination for assessment of river levee failure probability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 377-392.
    20. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr., 2017. "Ensembles of Overfit and Overconfident Forecasts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(4), pages 1110-1130, April.
    21. Phanish Puranam, 2021. "Human–AI collaborative decision-making as an organization design problem," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 10(2), pages 75-80, June.
    22. Renato Frey & Ralph Hertwig & Stefan M. Herzog, 2014. "Surrogate Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(2), pages 258-269, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:31:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-022-09783-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.