The beauty contest revisited: measuring consensus rankings of relevance using a game

Christopher G. Harris
{"title":"The beauty contest revisited: measuring consensus rankings of relevance using a game","authors":"Christopher G. Harris","doi":"10.1145/2594776.2594780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we examine the Keynesian Beauty Contest, a well-known examination of rational agents used to explain the role of consensus predictions in decision making such as price fluctuations in equity markets. Using a game, we study the crowd's ability to judge relevance for both images and textual documents. In addition to asking participants to determine if a document is relevant, we also ask them to rank all choices. One group of participants (N=137) was asked to make judgments based on their own assessment while another group of participants (N = 137) was asked to make judgments based on their estimate of a consensus decision. In addition to measuring recall and precision, our game also uses rank-biased overlap (RBO) to compare each participant's ranked list with the overall consensus decision. Results show the group asked to make ranking decisions based on their estimate of consensus had significantly higher recall for judging relevance in text documents and significantly higher recall and precision when judging relevance for a set of images. We believe this has implications for the determination of consensus across multiple contexts.","PeriodicalId":170006,"journal":{"name":"GamifIR '14","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GamifIR '14","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2594776.2594780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

In this paper, we examine the Keynesian Beauty Contest, a well-known examination of rational agents used to explain the role of consensus predictions in decision making such as price fluctuations in equity markets. Using a game, we study the crowd's ability to judge relevance for both images and textual documents. In addition to asking participants to determine if a document is relevant, we also ask them to rank all choices. One group of participants (N=137) was asked to make judgments based on their own assessment while another group of participants (N = 137) was asked to make judgments based on their estimate of a consensus decision. In addition to measuring recall and precision, our game also uses rank-biased overlap (RBO) to compare each participant's ranked list with the overall consensus decision. Results show the group asked to make ranking decisions based on their estimate of consensus had significantly higher recall for judging relevance in text documents and significantly higher recall and precision when judging relevance for a set of images. We believe this has implications for the determination of consensus across multiple contexts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视了选美比赛:使用游戏衡量相关性的共识排名
在本文中,我们研究了凯恩斯选美大赛,这是一个著名的理性行为的检验,用于解释共识预测在决策中的作用,如股票市场的价格波动。通过一个游戏,我们研究了人群判断图像和文本文档相关性的能力。除了要求参与者确定文档是否相关之外,我们还要求他们对所有选择进行排序。一组参与者(N=137)被要求根据他们自己的评估做出判断,而另一组参与者(N=137)被要求根据他们对共识决策的估计做出判断。除了测量召回率和精确度,我们的游戏还使用了秩偏重叠(RBO)来比较每个参与者的排序列表和总体共识决策。结果显示,被要求根据他们的共识估计做出排名决定的小组在判断文本文档的相关性方面具有显着更高的召回率,在判断一组图像的相关性方面具有显着更高的召回率和准确率。我们认为,这对在多种情况下确定共识具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
On the application of game mechanics in information retrieval Studying user browsing behavior through gamified search tasks People recognition using gamified ambiguous feedback Creating Zombilingo, a game with a purpose for dependency syntax annotation Gamification of private digital data archive management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1