Truth inference in crowdsourcing: is the problem solved?
Abstract
Crowdsourcing has emerged as a novel problem-solving paradigm, which facilitates addressing problems that are hard for computers, e.g., entity resolution and sentiment analysis. However, due to the openness of crowdsourcing, workers may yield low-quality answers, and a redundancy-based method is widely employed, which first assigns each task to multiple workers and then infers the correct answer (called truth ) for the task based on the answers of the assigned workers. A fundamental problem in this method is Truth Inference , which decides how to effectively infer the truth. Recently, the database community and data mining community independently study this problem and propose various algorithms. However, these algorithms are not compared extensively under the same framework and it is hard for practitioners to select appropriate algorithms. To alleviate this problem, we provide a detailed survey on 17 existing algorithms and perform a comprehensive evaluation using 5 real datasets. We make all codes and datasets public for future research. Through experiments we find that existing algorithms are not stable across different datasets and there is no algorithm that outperforms others consistently. We believe that the truth inference problem is not fully solved, and identify the limitations of existing algorithms and point out promising research directions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Aggregation methods have been widely studied in crowdsourcing and ensemble learning.
“Aggregation methods have been widely studied in fields such as crowdsourcing and ensemble learning, where strategies are developed to combine predictions (also referred to as worker predictions) to enhance decision quality during training and inference.”
From SkillAggregation: Reference-free LLM-Dependent Aggregation (2025) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2017
Most existing aggregation methods focus on weighting worker contributions without accounting for contextual information, though other methods introduce context-aware mechanisms.
“Most existing aggregation methods focus on weighting worker contributions without accounting for contextual information (Zhang et al., 2016;Zheng et al., 2017;Zhang, 2022)), though other methods introduce context-aware mechanisms (Jin et al., 2020;Zhang, 2022).”
From SkillAggregation: Reference-free LLM-Dependent Aggregation (2025) · cites this paper as Zheng et al., 2017
Cites
Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the <i>EM</i> Algorithm
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · Cited by 50,444 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Assessment in the age of artificial intelligence
Swiecki, Z., Khosravi, H., Chen, G., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Lodge, J. M., Milligan, S., Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2022) · Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2022.100075 · Cited by 409 · see citing works
DynaSent: A Dynamic Benchmark for Sentiment Analysis
Potts, C., Wu, Z., Geiger, A., & Kiela, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.186 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Evaluating the Quality of Learning Resources: A Learnersourcing Approach
Abdi, S., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., & Demartini, G. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2021.3058644 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
RobustFed: A Truth Inference Approach for Robust Federated Learning
Tahmasebian, F., Lou, J., & Xiong, L. (2022) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3511808.3557439 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
SkillAggregation: Reference-free LLM-Dependent Aggregation
Sun, G., Kagrecha, A., Manakul, P., Woodland, P., & Gales, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.756 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
NUTMEG: Separating Signal From Noise in Annotator Disagreement
Ivey, J., Gauch, S., & Jurgens, D. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.144
- Authors
- Zheng, Y., Li, G., Li, Y., Shan, C., & Cheng, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Hong Kong (HK)
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 541-552
- ISSN
- 2150-8097 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2585226541
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 17
- FWCI
- 53.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment (publishedVersion)
- The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Tencent (MYRG105 (Y1-L3)-FST13-GZ)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (973 Program, 2015CB358700, 61472198, 61422205, 61472198, 61373024, 61422205, 61632016)
- Fundo para o Desenvolvimento das Ciências e da Tecnologia
- National Key Research and Development Program of China (2015CB358700)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web Data Mining and Analysis
- Keywords
- truth inference, crowdsourcing, employee quality, algorithm comparison, algorithm stability, crowdsourced data quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review