TaskLint:自动检测任务指令中的歧义

V. K. C. Manam, Joseph Divyan Thomas, Alexander J. Quinn
{"title":"TaskLint:自动检测任务指令中的歧义","authors":"V. K. C. Manam, Joseph Divyan Thomas, Alexander J. Quinn","doi":"10.1609/hcomp.v10i1.21996","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Clear instructions are a necessity for obtaining accurate results from crowd workers. Even small ambiguities can force workers to choose an interpretation arbitrarily, resulting in errors and inconsistency. Crisp instructions require significant time to design, test, and iterate. Recent approaches have engaged workers to detect and correct ambiguities. However, this process increases the time and money required to obtain accurate, consistent results. We present TaskLint, a system to automatically detect problems with task instructions. Leveraging a diverse set of existing NLP tools, TaskLint identifies words and sentences that might foretell worker confusion. This is analogous to static analysis tools for code (\"linters\"), which detect possible features in code that might indicate the presence of bugs. Our evaluation of TaskLint using task instructions created by novices confirms the potential for static tools to improve task clarity and the accuracy of results, while also highlighting several challenges.","PeriodicalId":87339,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"TaskLint: Automated Detection of Ambiguities in Task Instructions\",\"authors\":\"V. K. C. Manam, Joseph Divyan Thomas, Alexander J. Quinn\",\"doi\":\"10.1609/hcomp.v10i1.21996\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Clear instructions are a necessity for obtaining accurate results from crowd workers. Even small ambiguities can force workers to choose an interpretation arbitrarily, resulting in errors and inconsistency. Crisp instructions require significant time to design, test, and iterate. Recent approaches have engaged workers to detect and correct ambiguities. However, this process increases the time and money required to obtain accurate, consistent results. We present TaskLint, a system to automatically detect problems with task instructions. Leveraging a diverse set of existing NLP tools, TaskLint identifies words and sentences that might foretell worker confusion. This is analogous to static analysis tools for code (\\\"linters\\\"), which detect possible features in code that might indicate the presence of bugs. Our evaluation of TaskLint using task instructions created by novices confirms the potential for static tools to improve task clarity and the accuracy of results, while also highlighting several challenges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1609/hcomp.v10i1.21996\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the ... AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1609/hcomp.v10i1.21996","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

明确的指示是必要的,以获得准确的结果从人群工作。即使是很小的歧义也会迫使工作人员任意选择解释,从而导致错误和不一致。清晰的指令需要大量的时间来设计、测试和迭代。最近的方法是让工作人员来检测和纠正歧义。然而,这个过程增加了获得准确、一致结果所需的时间和金钱。我们介绍TaskLint,一个自动检测任务指令问题的系统。利用现有的各种NLP工具,TaskLint可以识别可能预示员工困惑的单词和句子。这类似于代码的静态分析工具(“lint”),它检测代码中可能指示存在错误的特性。我们使用由新手创建的任务指令对TaskLint进行了评估,证实了静态工具在提高任务清晰度和结果准确性方面的潜力,同时也强调了一些挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
TaskLint: Automated Detection of Ambiguities in Task Instructions
Clear instructions are a necessity for obtaining accurate results from crowd workers. Even small ambiguities can force workers to choose an interpretation arbitrarily, resulting in errors and inconsistency. Crisp instructions require significant time to design, test, and iterate. Recent approaches have engaged workers to detect and correct ambiguities. However, this process increases the time and money required to obtain accurate, consistent results. We present TaskLint, a system to automatically detect problems with task instructions. Leveraging a diverse set of existing NLP tools, TaskLint identifies words and sentences that might foretell worker confusion. This is analogous to static analysis tools for code ("linters"), which detect possible features in code that might indicate the presence of bugs. Our evaluation of TaskLint using task instructions created by novices confirms the potential for static tools to improve task clarity and the accuracy of results, while also highlighting several challenges.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Collect, Measure, Repeat: Reliability Factors for Responsible AI Data Collection Crowdsourced Clustering via Active Querying: Practical Algorithm with Theoretical Guarantees BackTrace: A Human-AI Collaborative Approach to Discovering Studio Backdrops in Historical Photographs Confidence Contours: Uncertainty-Aware Annotation for Medical Semantic Segmentation Humans Forgo Reward to Instill Fairness into AI
×
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