Data quality in crowdsourcing and spamming behavior detection
Abstract
As crowdsourcing emerges as an efficient and cost-effective method for obtaining labels for machine learning datasets, it is important to assess the quality of crowd-provided data to improve analysis performance and reduce biases in subsequent machine learning tasks. Given the lack of ground truth in most cases of crowdsourcing, we refer to data quality as the annotators’ consistency and credibility. Unlike the simple scenarios where kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient usually can apply, online crowdsourcing requires dealing with more complex situations. We introduce a systematic method for evaluating data quality and detecting spamming threats via variance decomposition, and we classify spammers into three categories based on their different behavioral patterns. A spammer index is proposed to assess entire data consistency, and two metrics are developed to measure crowd workers’ credibility by utilizing the Markov chain and generalized random effects models. Furthermore, we demonstrate the practicality of our techniques and their advantages by applying them to a face verification task using both simulated and real-world data collected from two crowdsourcing platforms.
Study specs
Variance decomposition, Markov chain models, and generalized random effects models were used to assess annotator consistency and credibility; metrics were applied to both simulated and real-world data from two crowdsourcing platforms.
- Authors
- Y Ba,MV Mancenido,EK Chiou,R Pan
- Institution
- University of Delaware,National Taiwan University,University of British Columbia,Monash University
- Study Type
- methodology
- Year
- 2025
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Quality of crowdsourced data, spammer behaviors, annotators’ consistency, and credibility.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.