crowdgather: entity extraction over structured...
TRANSCRIPT
CrowdGather: Entity Extraction over Structured Domains
Theodoros RekatsinasUniversity of Maryland,
College Park
Amol DeshpandeUniversity of Maryland,
College Park
Aditya ParameswaranUniversity of Illinois,Urbana-Champaign
ABSTRACTCrowdsourced entity extraction is often used to acquire data formany applications, including recommendation systems, construc-tion of aggregated listings and directories, and knowledge base con-struction. Current solutions focus on entity extraction using a singlequery, e.g., only using “give me another restaurant”, when assem-bling a list of all restaurants. Due to the time and cost of humanlabor, just focusing on a single query limits the practical applica-bility of these solutions.
In this paper, we leverage a structured entity domain, i.e., do-mains that can be fully described by a collection of attributes, eachpotentially displaying hierarchical structure. Given such an entitydomain, we enable a richer space of queries, e.g., “give me anotherMoroccan restaurant in Manhattan that does takeout”. Naturally,enabling a richer space of queries comes with a host of issues, es-pecially since many queries return empty answers. We developnew statistical tools that enable us to reason about the gain of issu-ing additional queries given little to no information, and show howwe can exploit the overlaps across the results of queries for differ-ent points of the data domain to obtain accurate estimates of thegain. We cast the problem of budgeted entity extraction over largedomains as an adaptive optimization problem that seeks to maxi-mize the number of extracted entities, while minimizing the overallextraction costs. We evaluate our techniques with experiments onboth synthetic and real-world datasets, demonstrating a yield of upto 3.3X over competing approaches for the same budget.
1. INTRODUCTIONCombining human computation with traditional computation, com-
monly referred to as crowdsourcing, has been recently proven bene-ficial in extracting knowledge and acquiring data for many applica-tion domains, including recommendation systems [2], knowledgebase completion [17], entity extraction and structured data collec-tion [24, 31]. In fact, extracting information, and entities in par-ticular, from the crowd has been shown to provide access to morefine-grained information that may belong to the long tail of the webor even be completely unavailable on the web [9, 23, 34].
A fundamental challenge in crowdsourced entity extraction isreasoning about the completeness of the extracted information. Moreprecisely, given a task that seeks to extract entities from a specificdomain by asking human workers, e.g., “extract all restaurants inNew York”, it is not easy to judge if we have extracted all enti-ties (in this case restaurants). This is because we are in an “openworld” [9] scenario.
Recent work [31] has considered the problem of crowdsourcedentity extraction using a single type of query that is asked to hu-mans; for our restaurant case, the query will be “give me anotherrestaurant in New York”. That paper determines how many times
this query must be asked to different human workers before we aresure we have extracted all restaurants in New York. However, giventhe latency and monetary cost inherent in leveraging crowdsourc-ing, it is easy to see that just using this query repeatedly will not bepractical for real-world applications, for two coupled reasons: (a)wasted cost: we will keep receiving the most popular restaurantsand will have to wait a long while before we receive new or unseenrestaurants (b) lack of coverage: beyond a point all the restaurantswe get will already be present in our set of extracted entities —thus, for the less popular restaurants, we may never end up receiv-ing them at all.
In this paper, our goal is to make crowdsourced entity extractionpractical. To do so, we leverage a structured entity domain, i.e.,a domain that can be fully described by a collection of attributes,each potentially displaying hierarchical structure. For example, inour restaurant case, we could have one attribute about location, oneabout cuisine, and one about whether the restaurant does takeout.We can then leverage this entity domain to use a much richer spaceof queries asked to human workers, considering all combinations ofvalues for each of these attributes, e.g., “give me another Moroc-can restaurant in Manhattan, New York, that does takeout”. In thismanner, we can leverage these specific, targeted queries to extractnot-so popular entities with attribute values set to specific ones,e.g., in this case, cuisine is “Moroccan”, location is “Manhattan”,and takeout is “Yes”.
If we view the structured data domain as a partially ordered set(poset), then each query can be mapped to a node in the graph de-scribing its topology. Thus, our goal is to traverse the graph cor-responding to the input poset by issuing queries corresponding tovarious nodes, often multiple times at each node. However, theposet describing the domain can be often large, leading to a hostof additional challenges in deciding which queries to issue at anynode: (a) Sparsity: Many of the nodes in the poset are likely tobe empty, i.e., the queries corresponding to those nodes are likelyto not have any answers; avoiding asking queries corresponding tothese nodes is essential to keep monetary cost low. (b) Interrela-tionships: Many of the nodes in the poset are “coupled” with oneanother; for example, the results from a few queries correspond-ing to “give me another Moroccan restaurant in Manhattan, NewYork” can inform whether issuing queries corresponding to “giveme another Moroccan restaurant in Manhattan, New York, that doestakeout” is useful or not. We elaborate more on these challenges inSection 1.1 using examples from a real-world scenario.
Unfortunately, the techniques from Trushkowsky et al. [31] donot directly apply to the scenario where we are traversing a posetcorresponding to this structured data domain, and new techniquesare needed. To mitigate the shortcomings, one needs to tune thequeries that are asked. However, deciding which queries to ask
among a large number of possible queries (exponential in the num-ber of attributes describing the input domain) and when and howmany times to ask each query, are both critical challenges that needto be addressed. Furthermore, unlike the main techniques proposedby Trushkowsky et al. [31], we focus on the budgeted case, wherewe are given a budget and we want to maximize the number of re-trieved entities; we believe this is a more practical goal, instead ofthe goal of retrieving all entities. Our crowdsourced entity extrac-tion techniques can be useful for a variety of applications that arenaturally coupled to a structured entity domain, including:• A newspaper that wants to collect a list of today’s events to
be displayed on the events page every day. In this case, thestructured data domain could include event type (e.g., musicconcerts vs. political rallies) or location, among other attributes.• A stock trading firm wants to collect a list of stocks that have
been mentioned by popular press on the previous day. In thiscase, the structured data domain could include stock type, pop-ular press article type, or whether the mention was positive ornegative, among other attributes.• A real estate expert wants to curate a list of houses available for
viewing today. The structured data domain in this case couldinclude the price range, the number of floors, etc.• A university wants to find all the faculty candidates on the job
market. The structured data domain in this scenario includesthe university of the applicant, specialization, and whether theyare Ph.D./Postdoc.• The PC chair of a new conference wants to find potential re-
viewers. The domain describing each of the candidates can becharacterized by the university or company of the reviewer, ex-pertise, qualifications, and so on.
1.1 A Real-World ScenarioTo further exemplify the aforementioned challenges we review
a large-scale real-world scenario where crowdsourcing is used toextract entities. We consider Eventbrite (www.eventbrite.com),an online event aggregator, that relies on crowdsourcing to compilea directory of events with detailed information about the location,type, date and category of each event. Typically, event aggregatorsare interested in collecting information about diverse events span-ning from conferences and music festivals to political rallies acrossdifferent location, i.e., countries or cities. In particular, Eventbritecollects information about events across different countries in theworld. Each country is further split into cities and areas across thecountry. Moreover, events are organized according to their typeand topic. We collected a dataset from Eventbrite spanning over63 countries that are divided into 1,709 subareas (e.g., states) and10,739 cities, containing events of 19 different types, such as ral-lies, tournaments, conferences, conventions, etc. and a time periodof 31 days spanning over the months of October and November.
It is easy to see that two of the three dimensions, i.e., locationand time, describing the domain of collected events are hierarchi-cally structured. The overall domain can be fully specified if weconsider the cross product across the possible values for location,event type and time. For each of the location, time, type dimensionswe also consider a special wildcard value. Taking the cross-productacross the possible values of these dimensions results in poset witha total of 8,508,160 nodes containing 57,805 distinct events over-all. We point out that the events associated with a node in the posetoverlap with the events corresponding to its descendants. First, wedemonstrate how the sparsity challenge applies to Eventbrite.
EXAMPLE 1. We plot the number of events for each node in the
100
101
102
103
104
105
0� 20�40�60�80�100�120�140�160�180�Num
be
r o
f E
ven
ts in N
ode
Poset Node Index (x 103)
Eventbrite Domain Population
Figure 1: The attributes describing the events domain and the hierarchicalstructure of each attribute.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Ja
ccard
Index
Node-Pair Index
Pairwise Overlap for the 10 Largest Eventbrite Nodes
Figure 2: Pairwise overlaps for the 10 most populous nodes.
poset describing the event domain in the Eventbrite dataset. Outof 8,508,160 nodes only 175,068 nodes are associated with eventswhile the remaining have zero events. Figure 1 shows the numberof events per node (y-axis is in log-scale). As shown the most of thepopulated nodes have less than 100 events. Additionally, the mostpopulated nodes of the domain correspond to nodes from the higherlevels of the poset. When extracting events from such a sparse do-main one needs to carefully decide on the crowdsourced queries tobe issued especially if operating under a monetary budget.
As mentioned before, a critical challenge in such large domains isdeciding on the queries to ask. However, the hierarchical structureof the data domain presents us with an opportunity. One approachwould be to perform a top-down traversal of the poset and issuequeries at the different nodes. Nevertheless, this gives rise to a se-ries of challenges: (i) how can one decide on the number of queriesto be asked at each node, (ii) when should one progress to deeperlevels of the poset and (iii) which subareas should be explored. Weelaborate on these in Section 2. Next, we focus on the second chal-lenge, i.e., the interdependencies across poset nodes.
EXAMPLE 2. We consider again the Eventbrite dataset and plotthe pairwise overlaps of the ten most populous nodes in the domain.Figure 2 shows the Jaccard index for the corresponding node pairs.As shown the event populations corresponding to these nodes over-lap significantly. It is easy to see that when issuing queries at acertain domain node, we not only obtain events corresponding tothis node but to other nodes in the domain as well.
A critical issue that stems from the overlaps across nodes is beingable to decide how many answers to expect when issuing an addi-tional query at a node whose underlying population overlaps withnodes associated with previous queries. In Section 2, we elaboratemore on the dependencies across nodes of the poset.
1.2 ContributionsMotivated by the examples above, we study the problem of bud-
geted crowd entity extraction over structured domains. More pre-cisely, we focus on domains described by a collection of attributes,
each following a known hierarchical structure, i.e., we assume thatfor each attribute the corresponding hierarchy is known.
We propose a novel algorithmic framework that exploits the struc-ture of the domain to maximize the number of extracted entities un-der given budget constraints. In particular, we view the problem ofentity extraction as a multi-round adaptive optimization problem.At each round we exploit the information on extracted entities ob-tained by previous queries to adaptively select the crowd query thatwill maximize the gain and cost trade-off at each round. The gainof a query is defined as the number of new unique entities extractedby it. We extend on previous query interfaces that considered onlyquestions of the type “Give me k more entities from a domain”and examine generalized queries that can also include an excludelist. In general such queries are of the type “Give me k more enti-ties that from a domain that are not in {A,B, ...}”. Building upontechniques from the species estimation and the multi-armed banditsliterature, we introduce a new methodology for estimating the gainfor such generalized queries and show how the hierarchical struc-ture of the domain can be exploited to improve the accuracy of ourgain estimates. Our main contributions are as follows:• We study the challenge of information flow across entity ex-
traction queries for overlapping parts of the data domain.• We formalize the notion of an exclude list for crowdsourced en-
tity extraction queries and show how previously proposed gainestimators can be extended to handle such queries.• We develop a new technique to estimate the gain of generalized
entity extraction queries under the presence of dependent infor-mation. The proposed technique exploits the structure of thedata domain to obtain accurate estimates.• We introduce an adaptive optimization algorithm that takes as
input the gain estimates for different types of queries and iden-tifies querying policies that maximize the total number of re-trieved entities under given budget constraints.• Finally, we show that our techniques can effectively solve the
problem of budgeted crowd entity extraction for large data do-mains on both real-world and synthetic data.
2. PRELIMINARIESIn this section we first describe our structured data domain, then
describe entities and entity extraction queries or interfaces, alongwith the response and cost model for these queries. Then we focuson crowdsourced entity extraction using these interfaces and con-sider the problem of maximizing the number of extracted entities.In particular, we define the problem of crowd entity extraction overstructured domains under budget constraints. Then, we formallyintroduce the challenge of dependencies across queries when ex-tracting entities from structured domains, and finally, we presentan overview of our proposed algorithmic framework.
2.1 Structured Data DomainLet D be a data domain described by a set of discrete attributesAD = {A1, A2, . . . , Ad}. Let dom(Ai) denote the domain ofeach attribute Ai ∈ AD . We focus on domains where each at-tribute Ai is hierarchically organized. For example, consider theEventbrite domain introduced in Section 1.1. The data domain Dcorresponds to all events and the attributes describing the entities inD areAD = {“Event Type”, “Location”, “Date”}. Figure 3 showsthe hierarchical organization of each attribute.
The domain D can be viewed as a poset, i.e., a partially orderedset, corresponding to the cross-product of all available hierarchies1.1Note that D is not a lattice since there is no unique infimum.
Eventbrite Event Data Domain
Event Type
Location Country State City
Date Month Day
Figure 3: The attributes describing the Eventbrite domain and the hierar-chical structure of each attribute.
Part of the poset corresponding to the previous example is shownin Figure 4. We denote this cross-product as HD . As can be seenin Figure 4, there are nodes, such as {}, where no attributes arespecified, and nodes, such as {X1} and {C1}where just one of theattribute values is specified, as well as nodes, such as {X2, ST2},where multiple attribute values are specified.
{}
{EventType X1} {Country C1}
{State ST1} {State ST2}
{EventType X2}
{X1, C1} {X2, C1}
{X1, ST1} {X1, ST2} {X2, ST1} {X2, ST2}
Figure 4: Part of the poset defining the entire event entity domain describedby the attributes in Figure 3.
2.2 Entities and Entity Extraction QueriesEntities. Our goal is to extract entities that belong to the domainD. We assume that each entity e can be uniquely associated withone of the leaf nodes in the hierarchyHD; that is, there is a uniqueset of “most-specific” values of A1, . . . , Ad for every entity. Forexample, in our Eventbrite dataset, each entity (here, a local event)takes place in a specific city, and on a specific day. Our techniquesalso work for the case when entities can be associated only with“higher level” nodes, but we focus on the former case for simplicity.
Queries. Next, we describe queries for extracting entities from thecrowd. First, a query q is issued at a node v ∈ HD; that is, aquery specifies zero or more attribute values from A1, . . . , Ad thatare derived from the corresponding values of v, implicitly requiringthe worker to find entities that match the specified attribute values.
Given a query issued at a node, there are three different config-urations one can use to extract entities from the crowd: The firstconfiguration corresponds to single entity queries where workersare required to provide “one more” entity that match the specifiedattribute values mentioned in the query. Considering the Eventbriteexample introduced in the previous section, an example of a sin-gle entity query would be asking a worker to provide “a concert inManhattan, New York”. The second configuration corresponds toqueries of size k where workers are asked to provide up to k dis-tinct entities. Finally, the last configuration corresponds to excludelist queries. Here, workers are additionally provided with l entitiesthat have already been extracted and are required to provide up to kdistinct entities under the constraint that none of them is includedin this exclude list of size l. It is easy to see that the last configu-ration generalizes the previous two. Therefore, in the remainder ofthe paper, we will only consider queries using the third configura-tion. To describe a query, we will use the notation q(k, l) denotinga query of size k accompanied with an exclude list of length l.
Query Response. Given a query q(k, l) issued at a node v ∈ HD ,with an exclude list of entities S, |S| = l, a human worker gives usk distinct entities that belong to the domain D, match the specifiedattribute values mentioned in the query (derived from v), and arenot present in S. Furthermore, the human worker provides us theinformation for the attributes that are not specified in q for each ofthe k entities. For example, if our query is “a concert in Manhattan,New York”, with k = 1, l = 0, the human worker gives us oneconcert in Manhattan, New York, but also gives us the day on whichthe concert will take place (here, the missing, unspecified attribute).If the query is “a concert in the US”, with k = 1, l = 0, the humanworker gives us one concert in the US, but also gives the day onwhich the concert will take place, as well as the specific city. If lessthan k entities are present in the underlying population, workershave the flexibility to report either an empty answer or a smallernumber of entities (Section 3.4).
While the reader may wonder if getting additional attributes forentities is necessary, note that this information allows us to reasonabout which all nodes in HD the entity belongs to; without this,it is impossible to effectively traverse the poset. Furthermore, wefind that in most practical applications, it is useful to get the valuesof the missing attributes in order to organize and categorize theextracted entities better.
Notice also that we assume that human workers specify or ex-tract an entity correctly (e.g., no abbreviations, typos, and so on),once again for simplicity. It is straightforward to use an entity res-olution or string matching (e.g., jaccard coefficient) algorithm togroup identical entities together. Furthermore, since we are gettingall attributes for each entity, we can use these attributes to furtherascertain similarity of entities. In our experiments on real datasets,we found that there were no cases where humans introduced errorsto the attribute values of extracted entities. Only minor errors (e.g.,misspelled entity names) were detected.
Query Cost. In a typical crowdsourcing marketplace, tasks havedifferent costs depending on their difficulty. Thus, crowdsourcedqueries of different difficulties should also exhibit different costs.Let c() be a cost function for any query q(k, l). This cost func-tion should obey the following properties: (a) given a query with afixed query size its cost should increase as the size of its excludelist is increasing, and (b) given a query with a fixed exclude listsize its cost should increase as the number of requested answer in-creases. These are fixed upfront by the interface designer based onthe amount of work involved.
2.3 Crowdsourced Entity ExtractionThe basic version of crowdsourced entity extraction [31] seeks to
extract entities that belong to D, by simply using repeated queriesat the root node, with k = 1, l = 0 (subsequent versions relax lto be non-zero). However, when considering large entity domains,such as the event domain, one may need to issue a series of entityextraction queries at multiple nodes in HD — often overlappingwith each other — so that the entire domain is covered. Issuingqueries at different nodes ensures that the coverage across the do-main will be maximized.
We let π denote a querying policy, that is, a chain of queries atdifferent nodes in HD . Notice that multiple queries can be issuedat the same node. Let C(π) denote the overall cost, in terms ofmonetary cost (or equivalently, latency, since the more queries areissued, the more time the policy will take) of a querying policy π.We define the gain of a querying policy π as the total number ofunique entities, denoted by E(π) extracted when following policyπ. Thus, there is a natural tradeoff between the gain (i.e., the num-ber of extracted entities) and the cost of policies.
Here, we require that the user will only provide a monetary bud-get τc imposing a constraint on the total cost of a selected query-ing policy, and optimize over all possible querying policies acrossdifferent nodes ofHD . Our goal is to identify the policy that max-imizes the number of retrieved entities under the given budget con-straint. More formally, we define the problem of budgeted crowdentity extraction as follows:
PROBLEM 1 (BUDGETED CROWD ENTITY EXTRACTION). LetD be a given entity domain and τc a monetary budget on the totalcost of issued queries. The Budgeted Crowd Entity Extraction prob-lem seeks to find a querying policy π∗S using queries over nodes inHD that maximizes the number of unique entities extracted E(π∗S)under the constraint C(π∗S) ≤ τc.
Notice that due to the different query configurations, the optimalquerying policy for budgeted crowd entity extraction should alsoidentify the optimal configuration (k, l) for each query in π∗S .
The cost of a querying policy π is defined as the total cost of allqueries issued by following π. We have that C(π) =
∑q∈π c(q)
where the cost of each query q is defined according to a cost modelspecified by the user. Computing the total cost of a policy π iseasy. However, the gain E(π) of a policy π is unknown as we donot know in advance the entities corresponding to each node inHD ,and hence, needs to be estimated, as we discuss next.
2.4 Underlying Query Response ModelIn order to reason about the occurrence of entities as response to
specific queries, we need an underlying query response model. Ourquery response model is based on the notion of popularity.
Popularities. We assume that each underlying entity has a fixed,unknown popularity value with respect to crowd workers. Givena query q(1, 0), asking for one entity and using an exclude list ofsize 0, the probability that we will get entity e that satisfies theconstraints specified by q is nothing but the popularity value of edivided by the popularity value of all entities e′ that also satisfy theconstraints in q. As an example, if there are only two entities e1, e2that satisfy the constraints specified by a given query q1, with popu-larity values 3 and 2, then the probability that we get e1 on issuinga query q1(1, 0) is 3/5. If an exclude list S is specified, then theprobability that we will get an entity e /∈ S is the popularity valueof e divided by the popularity values of all entities e′ /∈ S also sat-isfying the constraints specified by q. Note that, we do not assumethat all workers follow the same popularity distribution. Rather theoverall popularity distribution can be seen as an average of the pop-ularity distributions across all workers.
Thus, since workers are asked to provide a limited number ofentities as response to a query, each entity extraction query can beviewed as taking a random sample from an unknown population ofentities. In the rest of the paper, we will refer to the distributioncharacterizing the popularities of entities in a population of entitiesas the popularity distribution of the population. We note that this isequivalent to the underlying assumption in the species estimationliterature [6] (Section 3).
Then, estimating the gain of a query q(k, l) at a node v ∈ HDis equivalent to estimating the number of new entities extracted bytaking additional samples from the population of v given all theretrieved entities by past samples associated with node v [31].
Samples for a Node. When extracting entities, the retrieved enti-ties for a node v can correspond to two different kinds of samples:(i) those that were extracted by considering the entire populationcorresponding to node v (ii) and those that we obtained by sam-pling only a part of the population corresponding to v. Samples
for a node v can be obtained either by querying node v or by indi-rect information flowing to v by queries at other nodes. We refer tothe latter case as dependencies across queries.
{}
{EventType X1} {Country C1}
{State ST1} {State ST2}
{EventType X2}
{X1, C1} {X2, C1}
{X1, ST1} {X1, ST2} {X2, ST1} {X2, ST2}
Querying node {EventType X1}
Figure 5: An example query that extract an entity sample from the red node.The nodes marked with green correspond to the nodes for which indirectentity samples are retrieved.
We use an example considering the poset in Figure 4, to illus-trate these two cases. The example is shown in Figure 5. As-sume a query q(k, 0) issued against node {EventType X1}. As-sume that the query result contains entities that correspond only tonode {X1,ST2}. The green nodes in Figure 5 are nodes for whichsamples are obtained indirectly without querying them. Notice, thatall these nodes are ancestors of {X1,ST2}. Analyzing the samplesfor the different nodes we have:• The samples corresponding to nodes {X1, C1} and {X1,ST2}
were obtained by considering their entire population. The rea-son is that node {EventType X1} is an ancestor of both and theentity population corresponding to it fully contains the popula-tions of both {X1,C1} and {X1,ST1}.• The samples corresponding to nodes { }, {Country C1} and{State ST2} were obtained by considering only part of theirpopulation. The reason is that the population of node {EventTypeX1} does not fully contain the populations of these nodes.
Samples belonging to both types need to be considered whenestimating the gain of a query at a node in v ∈ HD . To address thisissue we merge the extracted entities for each node in HD into asingle sample and treat the unified sample as being extracted fromthe entire underlying population of the node. As we discuss later inSection 4 we develop querying strategies that traverse the posetHDin a top-down approach, hence, the number of samples belongingin the first category, i.e., samples retrieved considering the entirepopulation of a node, dominates the number of samples retrieved byconsidering only part of a node’s population. Moreover, it has beenshown by Hortal et al. [12] that several of the techniques that can beused to estimate the gain of a query(see Section 3) are insensitiveto differences in the way the samples are aggregated.
2.5 Framework OverviewWe present an overview of our proposed framework for solv-
ing the problem of budgeted crowd entity extraction over struc-tured domains. We view the optimization problem described inSection 2.3 as a multi-round adaptive optimization problem whereat each round we solve the following subproblems:• Estimating the Gain for a Query. For each node in v ∈ HD ,
consider the retrieved entities associated with v and estimatethe number of new unique entities that will be retrieved if anew query q(k, l) is issued at v. This needs to be repeated forall possible configurations of k and l.• Detecting the Optimal Querying Policy. Using the gain es-
timates from the previous problem as input, identify the next
Estimate the gain for each candidate poset node:
use the retrieved entities and estimate the number
of new entities to be extracted for different
query sizes k and different exclude list sizes l
Using the gain estimates as input:
select the optimal poset node, query size k and
exclude list size l and execute a new crowd entity
extraction query
Iterate
until no
budget is left
Figure 6: Framework overview for budgeted entity extraction.
(query, node) combination so that the total gain across all roundsis maximized with respect to the given budget constraint.
Our proposed framework iteratively solves the aforementioned prob-lems until the entire budget is used. Figure 6 shows a high-leveldiagram of our proposed framework.
3. ESTIMATING THE GAIN OF QUERIESWe now present a novel estimation technique for the return of a
generalized query q(k, l) at a node v ∈ HD . Previous work [31]has drawn connections between this problem and species estima-tion literature [6]. However, these techniques are agnostic to anystructure exhibited by the domain under consideration and to thepresence of an exclude-list-based query interface. In particular,there is no mechanism for estimating the number of new tuples ex-tracted by a query when restricting the worker answer to not containany entities from a certain collection of entities as enforced by anexclude list. We first review the existing methodology for estimat-ing the gain of a query, then we discuss how these estimators can beextended to consider an exclude list, and finally, we present a newmethodology for estimating the gain of generalized queries q(k, l).
3.1 Previous EstimatorsConsider a specific node v ∈ HD . Prior work only considers
samples retrieved from the entire population associated with v anddoes not consider an exclude list. Let Q be the set of all existingsamples retrieved by issuing queries against v without an excludelist. These samples can be combined into a single sample of sizen =
∑q∈Q size(q). Let fi denote the number of entities that ap-
pear i times in this unified sample, and let f0 denote the number ofunseen entities from the population under consideration. Finally,let C be the population coverage of the unified sample — that is,this is the fraction of the population covered by the sample.
A new query q(k, 0) at node v can be viewed as increasing thesize of the unified sample by k. Prior work used techniques fromspecies estimation to estimate the expected number of new entitiesreturned in q(k, 0). Shen et al. [27], derive an estimator for thenumber of new species NShen that would be found in an increasedsample of size k. The approach assumes that the unobserved enti-ties have equal relative popularity. An estimate of the unique ele-ments found in an increased sample of size k is given by:
NShen = f0
(1−
(1− 1− C
f0
)k)(1)
At a high-level, the second term of Shen’s formula corresponds tothe probability that at least one unseen entity will be present in aquery asking for k more entities. Thus, multiplying this quantitywith the number of unseen entities f0 corresponds to the expectednumber of unseen entities that will be present in the result of a newquery q(k, 0).
Notice, that the quantities f0 and C are unknown and thus needto be estimated considering the entities in the running unified sam-ple. The coverage can be estimated by considering the Good-Turingestimator C = 1 − f1
nfor the existing retrieved sample. On the
other hand, multiple estimators have been proposed for estimatingthe number of unseen entities f0. Trushkowsky et al. [31] proposeda variation of an estimator introduced by Chao et al. [6] to esti-mate f0. Nevertheless, the authors argue that the original estimatorproposed by Chao performs similarly with their approach when es-timating the gain of an additional query q(k, 0).
The estimator by Chao [6] on which the authors build has beenshown to result in considerable bias in cases where the number ofobserved entities from a population represents only a small fractionof the entire population [13]. Notice, that this assumption holds forcrowdsourced entity extraction in a large domain, i.e., we are ob-serving only a small portion of the entire population. To addressthis problem, Hwang and Shen [13] proposed a regression basedtechnique to estimate f0. This estimator is shown to result in sig-nificantly smaller bias and empirically outperforms previously pro-posed estimators, including the one proposed by Chao, when theratio of retrieved entities to the entire entity population is small. Italso performs comparably to previous estimators when the ratio islarger. Notice that the output of this estimator can also be used as aplug-in quantity in Equation (1).
However, both the aforementioned estimators are agnostic to anexclude list. Next, we discuss how one can estimate the return of aquery q(k, l) in the presence of an exclude list of size l.
3.2 Queries With an Exclude ListConsider an exclude list of size l. As discussed before an ex-
clude list is a set of entities that correspond to invalid worker an-swers. Considering an exclude list for a query at a node v ∈ HDcorresponds to limiting our sampling to a restricted subset of theentity population corresponding to node v. In fact, we want to es-timate the expected return of a query of size k conditioning on thefact that the entities in the exclude list will not be retrieved by anynew sample. The latter corresponds to removing these entities fromthe population under consideration. Thus, the estimates f0 and Cshould be updated before applying Equation (1) to compute the ex-pected return of a query of size k. This can be done by removingthe entities included in the exclude list from the running sample fornode v, recomputing the entity counts fi and following the tech-niques presented above for computing the updated estimates for f0and C. This approach requires that the exclude list is known inadvance. To construct an exclude list one can follow a randomizedapproach, where l of the retrieved entities are including in the listuniformly at random. The generated list can be used to update thefrequency counts fi and estimate the gain of the query. Bootstrap-ping can also be used to obtain improved estimates.
3.3 Regression Based Gain EstimationBuilding upon the approach of Hwang and Shen [13], we in-
troduce a new technique for estimating the gain of a generalizedquery q(k, l) directly without using the estimator shown in Equa-tion (1). Since we want to estimate the gain even for nodes witha small number of retrieved entities we propose a regression basedtechnique that is able to capture the structural properties of the ex-pected gain function as discussed below.
To derive the new estimator we make used of the generalizedjackknife procedure for species richness estimation [11]. Giventwo (biased) estimators of S, say S1 and S2, let R be the ratio of
their biases:
R =E(S1)− SE(S2)− S
(2)
By the generalized jackknife procedure, we can completely elimi-nate the bias resulting from either S1 or S2 via
S = G(S1, S2) =S1 −RS2
1−R (3)
provided the ratio of biases R is known. However, R is unknownand needs to be estimated.
Let Dn denote the number of unique entities in a unified sam-ple of size n. We consider the following two biased estimators ofS: S1 = Dn and S2 =
∑nj=1Dn−1(j)/n = Dn − f1/n where
Dn−1(j) is the number of species discovered with the jth observa-tion removed from the original sample. Replacing these estimatorsin Equation (3) gives us:
S = Dn +R
1−Rf1n
(4)
Similarly, for a sample of increased size n+m we have:
S = Dn+m +R′
1−R′f ′1
n+m(5)
where R′ is the ratio of the biases and f ′1 the number of singletonentities for the increased sample. Let K = R
1−R and K′ = R′
1−R′ .Taking the difference of the previous two equations we have:
Dn+m −Dn = Kf1n−K′ f ′1
n+m(6)
Therefore, we have:
new = Kf1n−K′ f ′1
n+m(7)
We need to estimateK,K′ and f ′1. We start with f ′1, which denotesthe number of singleton in the increased sample of size n+m. No-tice, that f ′1 is not known since we have not obtained the increasedsample yet, so we need to express it in terms of f1, i.e., the numberof singletons, in the running sample of size n. We have:
f ′1 = new + f1 − f1 ∗ Pr[in query of size m] (8)
Following an approach similar to Shen et al. [27], we have that theprobability of a singleton appearing in a query of size m is:
Pr[in query of size m] =
m∑k=0
(1−(1− 1
f1)k)
(m
k
)(1−p1)kpm−k1
(9)where p1 denotes the probability that a singleton item in the sampleof size n will be selected in a future query. We estimate this prob-ability using the corresponding Good-Turing estimator consideringthe running sample. We have:
p1 = θ(1) =1
n2N2
N1(10)
where N2 is the number of entities that appear twice in the sampleand N1 is the number of singletons. Eventually we have that:
f ′1 = new + f1(1−m∑k=0
(1− (1− 1
f1)k)
(m
k
)(1− p1)kpm−k1 )
f ′1 = new + f1(1− P ) (11)
Replacing the last equation in Equation (7) we have:
new = Kf1n−K′ new + f1(1− P )
n+m
new =1
(1 + K′n+m
)(K
f1n−K′ f1(1− P )
n+m)
Next, we discuss how one can estimate K and K′. To estimateK we follow the regression approach introduced by Hwang andShen [13]. From the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we have that:
K =
∑Si=1(1− pi)
n∑Si=1 pi(1− pi)n−1
≥ (n− 1)f12f2
(12)
This can be generalized to:
K =nf0f1≥ (n− 1)f1
2f2≥ (n− 2)f2
3f3≥ . . . (13)
Let g(i) = (n−i)fi(i+1)fi+1
. From the above we have that the functiong(x) is a smooth monotone function for all x ≥ 0. Moreover, let yidenote a realization of g(i) mixed with a random error. Hwang andShen how one can use an exponential regression model to estimateK. The proposed model corresponds to:
yi = β0 exp(β1iβ2) + εi (14)
where i = 1, . . . , n − 1, β0 > 0, β1 < 0, β2 > 0 and εi denotesrandom errors. It follows that K = β0.
Finally, we show how one can estimate the value ofK′ for an in-creased sample of size n + m. First, we show that K increasesmonotonically as the size of the running sample increases. Let
K(n) =∑S
i=1(1−pi)n∑S
i=1 pi(1−pi)n−1 be a function returning the value of
K for a sample of size n. We have the following lemma.
LEMMA 1. We have K(n+m) ≥ K(n), ∀n,m > 0.PROOF. In the remainder of the proof we will denoteK(n+m)
as K′. By definition we have that K =∑S
i=1(1−pi)n∑S
i=1 pi(1−pi)n−1 and
K′ =∑S
i=1(1−pi)n+m∑S
i=1 pi(1−pi)n+m−1 . We want to show that:
∑Si=1(1− pi)n+m∑S
i=1 pi(1− pi)n+m−1≥
∑Si=1(1− pi)n∑S
i=1 pi(1− pi)n−1
S∑i=1
(1− pi)n+mS∑j=1
pj(1− pj)n−1 ≥S∑i=1
pi(1− pi)n+m−1S∑j=1
(1− pj)n
∑i,j:i≺j
[(1− pi)n+mpj(1− pj)n−1 − pi(1− pi)n+m−1(1− pj)n+
+ (1− pj)n+mpi(1− pi)n−1 − pj(1− pj)n+m−1(1− pi)n] ≥ 0∑i,j:i≺j
[(1− pi)n−1(1− pj)n−1(pj − pi)((1− pi)m − (1− pj)m) ≥ 0
(15)
But the last inequality always holds since each term of the sum-mation is positive. In particular, if pj ≥ pi then also 1−pi ≥ 1−pjand if pj ≤ pi then 1− pi ≤ 1− pj .
We have that K(n) is an increasing function of the sample size.Moreover,K(n) has a decreasing slope. We modelK as a general-ized logistic function of the form f(x) = A
1+exp(−G(x−D)). As we
observe samples of different sizes for different queries we estimateK as described above and therefore we observe different realiza-tions of f(·). Thus, we can learn the parameters of f and use it toestimate K′. In the presence of an exclude list of size l we followthe approach described in Section 3.2 to update the quantities fiused in the analysis above.
3.4 Negative Answers and Gain EstimationNext, we study the effect of negative answers on estimating the
gain of future queries. It is possible to issue a query at a specificnode v ∈ HD and receive no entities, i.e., we receive a negativeanswer. This is an indication that the underlying entity populationof v is empty. In such a scenario, we assign the expected gain offuture queries at v and all its descendants to zero.
Another type of negative answer corresponds to the scenariowhere we issue a query at an ancestor node u of v and receive noentities associated with v but received some entities for u. Notice,that in this case, we do not have enough information to update ourestimates for node u. The reason is that due to the restricted querysize entities from other descendants of umay be more popular withrespect to the popularity distribution of u.
4. DISCOVERING QUERYING POLICIESIn this section, we focus on the second component of our pro-
posed algorithmic framework. Specifically, we introduce a query-ing strategy based on a multi-round adaptive optimization algo-rithm to maximize the total gain across all rounds under the givenbudget constraints. The algorithmic framework we propose buildsupon ideas from the multi-armed bandit literature [4, 8]. In par-ticular, at each round, the proposed algorithm uses as input theestimated gain or return for queries q(k, l) at the different nodesin HD . Before presenting our proposed algorithm we list severalchallenges associated with this adaptive optimization problem.• The first challenge is that the number of nodes in HD is ex-
ponential with respect to the number of attributes AD describ-ing the domain of interest. Querying every possible node toestimate its expected return for different queries q(k, l) is pro-hibitively expensive. That said, typical budgets do not allow al-gorithms to query all nodes in the hierarchy, so this intractabil-ity may not hurt us all that much. For example, we can keepestimates for each of the nodes for which at least one entity hasbeen retrieved.• The second challenge is balancing the tradeoff between exploita-
tion and exploration [4]. The first refers to querying nodes forwhich sufficient entities have been retrieved and hence we havean accurate estimate for their expected return; the latter refersto exploring new nodes inHD to avoid locally optimal policies.
4.1 Balancing Exploration and ExploitationWhile issuing different queries q(k, l) at different nodes of HD
we obtain a collection of entities that can be assigned to differentnodes in HD . For each node we can estimate the return of a newquery q(k, l) using the estimator presented in Section 3.3. How-ever, this estimate is based on a rather small sample of the under-lying population. Thus, exploiting this information at every roundmay need to suboptimal decision. This is the reason why one needsto balance the trade-off between exploiting nodes for which the es-timated return is high and nodes that haven’t been queried manytimes. Formally, the latter corresponds to upper-bounding the ex-pected return of each potential action with a confidence interval thatdepends on both the variance of the expected return and the numberof times an action is evaluated.
Let r(α) denote the expected return of action α that is an esti-mate of the true return r∗(α). Moreover, let σ(α) be an error com-ponent on the return of action α chosen such that r(α) − σ(α) ≤r∗(α) ≤ r(α) + σ(α) with high probability. The parameter σ(α)should take into account both the empirical variance of the expectedreturn as well as our uncertainty if an action or similar actions (e.g.,with different k, l but at the same node) has been chosen few times.
Let nα,t be the number of times we have chosen action α by roundt, and let vα,t denote the maximum value between some constant c(e.g., c = 0.01) and the empirical variance for action α at round t.The latter can be computed using bootstrapping over the retrievedsample and applying the estimators presented in Section 3.3 overthese bootstrapped samples. Several techniques have been pro-posed in the multi-armed bandits literature to compute the param-eter σ(α) [30]. Teytaud et al. [30] showed that techniques consid-ering both the variance and the number of times an action has beenchosen tend to outperform other proposed methods. Based on thisobservation, we choose to use the following formula for sigma:
σ(α) =
√vα,t · log(t)
nα,t(16)
4.2 A Multi-Round Querying Policy AlgorithmWe now introduce our proposed multi-round algorithm for solv-
ing the budgeted entity enumeration problem. At a high-level, ouralgorithm proceeds as follows: Let S denote the set of all poten-tial queries q(k, l) that can be issued at the different nodes of HDduring a round r. Moreover, let r(α)+σ(α) and c(α) be the upper-bounded return (i.e., gain) and cost for an action α ∈ S. At eachround the algorithm identifies an action in S that maximizes thequantity r(α)+σ(α)
c(α)under the constraint that the cost of action α
is less or equal to the remaining budget. Since we are operatingunder a specified budget one can view the problem in hand as avariation of the typical knapsack problem. If no such action existsthen the algorithm terminates. Otherwise the algorithm issues thequery corresponding to action α, updates the set of unique entitiesobtained from the queries, the remaining budget and updates the setof potential queries q(k, l) that can be executed in the next round.An overview of the proposed algorithm is shown in Algorithm 1.
As discussed before, the size ofHD is exponential to the valuesof attributes describing it, and thus, considering all the possiblequeries corresponding to the different nodes of the hierarchy canbe prohibitively expensive. Next, we discuss how one can initializeand update the set of potential actions as the algorithm progressesconsidering the structure of the posetHD and the retrieved entitiesfrom previous rounds.
Algorithm 1 Overall Algorithm
1: Input: HD : the hierarchy describing the entity domain; r, σ: valueoracle access to gain upper bound; c: value oracle access to the querycosts; βc: query budget;
2: Output: E : a set of extracted distinct entities;3: E ← {}4: RB ← βc /* Initialize remaining budget */5: S ← UpdateActionSet(HD)6: while RB > 0 and S 6= {} do7: α← argmaxα∈S
r(α)+σ(α)c(α)
such that RB − c(α) > 0
8: if α is NULL then9: break;
10: RB ← RB − c(α) /* Update budget */11: Issue query corresponding to α12: E ← entities from query13: E ← E ∪ E /* Update unique entities */14: S ← UpdateActionSet(HD)15: return E
4.3 Updating the Set of ActionsDue to the exponential size of the poset HD , we need to limit
the set of possible actions Algorithm 1 considers. To avoid keepingestimates for actions with bad returns we exploit the structure the
given domainHD . We propose an algorithm that updates the set ofactions by traversing the input poset in a top-down manner extend-ing it by adding new actions that corresponds to queries for nodesthat are direct descendants of already queried nodes.
The intuition behind this approach is the following. It is easyto see that due to the hierarchical structure of the poset nodes athigher levels of the poset corresponds to larger populations of enti-ties. Therefore, issuing queries at these nodes can potentially resultto a larger number of extracted entities. Also, traversing the posetin a bottom-down fashion allows one to detect sparsely populatedareas of the poset and hence avoid spending any of the availablebudget on issuing queries corresponding to them.
In more detail, our approach for updating the set of availableactions (Algorithm 2) proceeds as follows: If the set of availableactions is empty start by considering all possible queries that canbe issued at the root of HD (Ln. 4-5). The set of possible queriescorresponds to queries q(k, l) for all combinations of the valuesof parameters k and l. Recall that these are pre-specified by thedesigner of the querying interface. If the set of available actions isnot empty, we consider the node associated with the action selectedin the last round and populate the set of available actions with allthe queries corresponding to its direct descendants (Ln. 7-9). Asmentioned above the number of nodes in HD can be prohibitivelylarge, therefore we also remove any bad actions from the runningset of actions (Ln. 10-14). An action α is bad when r(α)+σ(α) <maxα′∈S(r(α
′) − σ(α′)). Intuitively, this inequality states thatwe do not need to consider again an action as long as there existsanother action such that the upper-bounded return of the former islower than the lower bounded return of the latter. This is a standardtechnique adopted in multi-armed bandits to limit the number ofactions considered by the algorithm [8].
Algorithm 2 UpdateActionSet
1: Input: HD : the hierarchy describing the entity domain; u: a node inHD associated with the last selected action; Sold: the running set ofactions; Vk: set of values for query parameter k; Vl: set of values forquery parameter l;
2: Output: Snew: the updated set of actions;3: /* Extend Set of Actions*/4: if Sold is empty then5: return {Root ofHD}6: Snew ← Sold7: for all d ∈ Set of Direct Descendant Nodes of u do8: Ad ← Set of queries at u for all configurations in Vk × Vl9: Snew ← Snew ∪Ad
10: /* Remove Bad Actions*/11: /* Find maximum lower bound on gain over all actions in Snew*/12: thres← maxα′∈Snew
(r(α′)− σ(α′))13: B ← All actions a in Snew with r(α) + σ(α) < thres14: Snew ← Snew \ B15: return Snew
5. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATIONIn this section we present an empirical evaluation of our pro-
posed algorithmic framework. The main questions we seek to ad-dress are: (1) how the proposed querying policy algorithm com-pares against baselines for maximizing the number of extracted en-tities under a specific budget, (2) how the different gain estimatorspresented in Section 3 compare with each other, and (3) how theproposed querying policy algorithm exploits the structure of the in-put domain to construct the set of available actions.
We empirically study these questions using both real and syn-thetic datasets. First, we discuss the experimental methodology,and then we describe the data and results that demonstrate the ef-fectiveness of our framework on crowdsourced entity extraction.
The evaluation is performed on an Intel(R) Cored(TM) i7 3.7 GHz32GB machine; all algorithms are implemented in Python 2.7.
Gain Estimators: We evaluate the following gain estimators:• Chao92Shen: This estimator combines the methodology pro-
posed by Chao [6] for estimating the number of unseen specieswith Shen’s formula, i.e., Equation (1). This estimator was alsoused by Trushkowsky et al. [31].• HwangShen: This estimator combines the regression based ap-
proach proposed by Hwang and Shen [13] for estimating thenumber of unseen species with Shen’s formula.• NewRegr: This estimator corresponds to the new regression
based technique proposed in Section 3.3.All estimators were coupled with bootstrapping to estimate theirvariance to retrieve an upper bound on the return of a query asshown in Equation (16).
Entity Extraction Algorithms: We evaluate the following algo-rithms for crowdsourced entity extraction:• Rand: This algorithm executes random queries until all the
available budget is used. It selects a random node from theinput posetHD and a random query configuration q(k, l) froma list of pre-specified k, l value combinations. We expect Randto be effective for extracting entities in small and dense datadomains that do not have many sparsely populated nodes.• RandL: This algorithm executes random queries only at the
lowest level nodes (i.e., leaf nodes) of the input posetHD untilall the available budget is used. It selects a random leaf nodeand a random query configuration q(k, l) from a list of pre-specified k, l value combinations. We expect RandL to be effec-tive for shallow data domains when the majority of nodes cor-responds to leaf nodes. And similar to Rand, the performanceof RandL is expected to be reasonable for small and dense datadomains without sparsely populated nodes.• BFS: This algorithm performs a breadth-first traversal of the
input poset HD , executing one query at each node. The queryconfiguration is randomly selected from a list of pre-specifiedk, l value combinations. This algorithm promotes explorationof the action space when extracting entities. It also takes intoaccount the structure of the input domain but is agnostic tosparsely populated nodes of the inputHD .• GSChao, GSHWang, GSNewR: These algorithms correspond
to our proposed querying policy algorithm (Section 4.2) cou-pled with Chao92Shen, HwangShen and NewRegr respectively.• GSExact: This algorithm is used as a near-optimal, omniscient
baseline that allows us to see how far off our algorithms arefrom an algorithm with perfect information. In particular, wecombine the algorithm proposed in Section 4.2 with an ex-act computation of the return or gains from queries. Moreprecisely, the algorithm proceeds as follows: At each roundwe speculatively execute each of the available actions (i.e., allquery configurations across all nodes) and select the one thatresults in the largest number of return to cost ratio. Since thereturn of each query is known, the algorithm is not coupled withany of the aforementioned estimators.
Rand, RandL and BFS promote the exploration of the actionspace when extracting entities, while the other algorithms balanceexploration with exploitation. For the results reported below, werun each algorithm ten times and report the average gain achievedunder the given budget.
Querying Interface: For all datasets we consider generalized queries
q(k, l) of the type “Give me k more entities that satisfy certain con-ditions and are not present in an exclude list of size l”. The condi-tions correspond to matching the attribute values associated with anode from the input poset. The configurations considered for (k, l)are {(5, 0), (10, 0), (20, 0), (5, 2), (10, 5), (20, 5), (20, 10)}. Largervalues of k or lwere deemed unreasonable for crowdsourced queries.The gain of a query is computed as the number of new entitiesextracted. The cost of each query is computed using an additivemodel comprised by three partial cost terms that depend on thecharacteristics of the query.
The three partial cost terms are: (i) CostK that depends on thenumber of responses k requested from a user, (ii) CostL that de-pends on the size of the exclude list l used in the query, and (iii)CostSpec that depends on the specificity of the query qs, e.g., weassume that queries that require users to provide more specializedentities such as a “Give me one concert for New York on the 17thof Nov” cost more than more generic queries such as “Give me oneconcert in New York”. More formally, we define the specificity of aquery to be equal to the number on attributes assigned non-wildcardvalues for the node u ∈ HD the query corresponds to.
For each of the cost terms we assume a maximum cost of $1realized by considering the maximum value of the correspondinginput variable. The overall cost for a query q(k, l) with specificitys is computed as:
Cost(q) = α·k
max. query size+β·
l
max. ex. list size+γ·
s
max. specificity
The cost of a query should be significantly increased when anexclude list is used, thus we require that β is set to a larger valuethan α and γ. For the results reported below, we set α = γ = 1and β = 5. Similar results were observed for other settings but areomitted due to space limitations.
5.1 Synthetic Data ExperimentsFirst, we evaluate the proposed framework on extracting entities
from a large domain. We consider the event dataset collected fromEventbrite. As described in Section 1, the poset corresponding tothe Eventbrite domain contains 8,508,160 nodes with 57,805 dis-tinct events overall. However, only 175,068 nodes are populatedleading to an rather sparsely populated domain. Due to lack ofpopularity proxies for the extracted events, we assigned a randompopularity value in (0, 10] to each event. These weights are usedduring sampling to form the actual popularity distribution charac-terizing the population of each node in the poset.Results: We evaluate the performance, in terms of number of en-tities extracted, for the different extraction algorithms describedabove, across a range of different budgets. We run each algorithmten times and report the average number of unique events extractedas well as the corresponding standard error. The results are shownin Figure 7. As can be seen, all of our proposed algorithms, i.e.,GSChao, GSHwang, GSNewR outperform the baselines under con-sideration exhibiting an improvement of at least 2X on the totalnumber of unique events extracted. For example, for budget = $50,our schemes all extracted greater than 500 events while Rand andRandL extracted 1.1 and 0.2 events and BFS extracted 207.7 events,an improvement of over 140%. Moreover, for smaller budgets weobserve that these algorithms perform comparably to GSExact thathas “perfect information” to the gain of each query, typically giv-ing half the number of entities that GSExact extracts. Note that ourestimators have access to few samples and sparse information; thefact that we are able to get this close to GSExact is notable.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
10 20 50 80 100
Extr
acte
d E
ve
nts
Budget
Extraction Performance for Eventbrite
RandRandL
BFS
GSChaoGSHwangGSNewR
GSExact
Figure 7: The number of events extracted by different algorithms for theEventbrite data domain and different budgets.
Table 1: Average absolute relative error for estimating the gain of differentqueries for Eventbrite.
Q. Size k EL. Size l Chao92Shen HwangShen NewRegr5 0 0.470 0.500 0.4275 2 0.554 0.612 0.56710 0 0.569 0.592 0.54410 5 0.580 0.696 0.55920 0 0.642 0.756 0.60120 5 0.510 0.60 0.51920 10 0.653 0.756 0.631
The poor performance of Rand and RandL is due to the sparsityof the Eventbrite data domain. Regarding BFS, we see that it ex-hibits better performance than Rand and RandL by exploiting thestructure of the underlying domain. However, since BFS is agnos-tic to the cost of the issued queries as well as to sparsely populatedareas of the underlying poset, it can only extract a limited numberof events. On the other hand, our proposed techniques were able toextract significantly more tuples as they both exploit the structureof the poset and optimize for the cost of the issued queries. Fi-nally, we point out that GSNewR that combines the proposed posettraversal algorithm with our new regression-based gain estimatorwas able to outperform GSChao and GSHwang.
To further understand the relative performance of GSChao, GSH-wang and GSNewR, we evaluate the performance of the gain esti-mators described above at predicting the number of new retrievedevents for different query configurations. We choose ten randomnodes from Eventbrite each containing more than 5,000 events. Foreach of the nodes and each of the available query parameter con-figurations (k, l), we execute ten queries of the form “Give me kitems from node u ∈ HD that are not included in an exclude list ofsize l”. As mentioned in Section 3.2 the exclude list for each queryis constructed following a randomized approach.
We measure the performance of each estimator by consideringthe absolute relative error between the predicted return and the ac-tual return of the query. In Table 1, we report the relative error foreach of the three estimators averaged over all points under con-sideration. As shown, all three estimators perform equivalentlywith the new regression based technique slightly outperformingChao92Shen and HwangShen for certain types of queries. For ex-ample, for k = 10, l = 5, Chao92Shen has a relative error of 0.58,HwangShen had a relative error of 0.7, and NewRegr had a relativeerror of 0.56. We attribute the improved extraction performance ofGSNewR to these improved estimates. The relatively large valuesfor relative errors are justified as the retrieved samples correspondto a very small portion of the underlying population for each of thepoints. This is a well-known behavior for non-parametric estima-tors and studied extensively in the species estimation literature [13].
Table 2: The population characteristics for the People’s data.
Person Type PeopleIndustry People 743
Athletes 743Politicians 748
Actors/Singers 744
News Portal PeopleWSJ 594
WashPost 597NY Times 595HuffPost 599
USA Today 593
5.2 Real Data ExperimentsSince the performance of the baseline algorithms is significantly
affected by the sparsity of the Eventbrite data domain, we choose tofurther evaluate the performance of the extraction algorithms for amore dense domain, that we constructed ourselves. We used Ama-zon’s Mechanical Turk [1] to collect a real-world dataset, targetedat extracting “people in the news”.
We asked workers to extract the names of people belonging tofour different types from five different news portals. The peopletypes we considered are “Politicians”, “Athletes”, “Actors/Singers”and “Industry People”. The news portals we considered are “NewYork Times”, “Huffington Post”, “Washington Post”, “USA To-day” and “The Wall Street Journal”. This data domain, referredto as the People’s domain, is essentially characterized by the typeof the individual and the news portal. Workers were paid $0.20 perHIT. We issued 20 HITS for each leaf node of the domain’s poset,resulting in 600 HITS in total. After manually curating name mis-spelling’s, we extracted 1,245 unique people in total. Table 2 showsthe number of distinct entities for the different values of the people-type and news portal attributes. Finally, the popularity value of eachextracted entity was assigned to be equal to the number of times itappeared in the extraction result. The values are normalized duringsampling time to form a proper popularity distribution. Collect-ing a large amount of data in advance from Mechanical Turk andthen simulating the responses of human workers by revealing por-tions of this dataset allows us to compare different algorithms onan equal footing; this approach is often adopted in the evaluation ofcrowdsourcing algorithms [22, 19, 31].
Results: We first evaluate the performance of the different extrac-tion algorithms. Similarly to Eventbrite we run each algorithm tentimes and report the average performance. The results are shown inFigure 8. As shown our proposed techniques (i.e., GSChao, GSH-wang and GSNewR) still outperform Rand, RandL and BFS. How-ever, we see that the performance improvement compared to thebaselines is smaller compared to Eventbrite. The reason is that theinput domain is dense and all nodes of the input poset are pop-ulated, so even random techniques may “get lucky” fairly often.Even so, the number of nodes extracted by all our proposed tech-niques is typically 100% greater than that of the other techniquesfor small budgets and 54% for larger ones.
0
200
400
600
0 10 20 50 80 100
Extr
acte
d P
eople
Budget
Extraction Performance for People Data
RandRandL
BFS
GSChaoGSHwangGSNewR
GSExact
Figure 8: The number of people extracted by different algorithms for thePeople data domain and different budgets.
We also observe that issuing random extraction queries at the
nodes of the poset outperforms BFS for a significant margin asthe available budget increases. This behavior is expected in densesmall domains where all the available nodes are populated. No-tice that this approach corresponds to a querying policy that fo-cuses purely on exploring different queries. However, exploitingpreviously obtained information and balancing exploration and ex-ploitation of the possible actions (i.e., following the proposed posettraversal algorithm) leads to superior performance. We further no-tice that GSChao does better than GSNewR in this case, unlike theprevious case. This is because the Chao92Shen estimator performsbetter when the retrieved samples correspond to a larger portion ofthe underlying population (i.e., when operating under a large bud-get), as we see below.
Next, we evaluate the performance of the gain estimators. Asbefore, we issue ten queries to different nodes of the input poset forall available query configurations. Since the input poset is small,we issued ten queries over all nodes. For each gain estimator andquery configuration, we computed the average relative error, com-paring the estimated query return with the actual query return. Theresults are shown in Table 3. Again, we observe that for smallerquery sizes the regression technique proposed in this paper offersbetter gain estimates. However, as the query size increases, andhence, a larger portion of the underlying population is observedChao92Shen outperforms both regression based techniques. Thus,we are able to explain the performance difference between GSChaoand the other two algorithms.
Table 3: Average absolute percentage error for estimating the gain of dif-ferent queries for the People’s data domain.
Q. Size k EL. Size l Chao92Shen HwangShen NewRegr5 0 0.295 0.299 0.2285 2 0.163 0.156 0.14410 0 0.306 0.305 0.27710 5 0.341 0.349 0.29320 0 0.359 0.371 0.46720 5 0.402 0.418 0.49320 10 0.405 0.428 0.638
We next explore how our different algorithms traverse the poset,and how they use different query configurations. The results re-ported are averaged over ten runs. We begin by considering howmany queries these algorithms issue at various levels of the poset.In Figure 9, we plot the different number of queries issued at vari-ous levels by our algorithms when the budget is set to 10 and 100respectively. Given a small budget, we observe that all algorithmsprefer issuing queries at higher levels of the poset. Notice that innernodes of the poset are preferred and only a small number of queriesis issued at the root (i.e., level one) of the poset. This behavioris justified if we consider that due to their popularity, certain enti-ties are repeatedly extracted, thus leading to a lower gain. As thebudget increases, we see that all algorithms tend to consider morespecialized queries at deeper levels of the poset. It is interesting toobserve that all of our algorithms issue the majority of their queriesat the level two nodes, while GSExact, which has perfect infor-mation, focuses mostly on the leaf nodes. Thus, in this case, ourtechniques could benefit from being more aggressive at traversingthe poset and reaching deeper levels; overall, our techniques mayend up being more conservative in order to cater to a larger spaceof posets and popularity distributions. In Figure 10, we plot thedifferent query configurations chosen by our algorithms when thebudget is set to 10 and 100 respectively. We observe that GSEx-act always prefers queries with k = 20 and l = 0 for both smalland large budgets. On the other hand, our algorithms issue morequeries of smaller size when operating under a limited budget andprefer queries of larger size for larger budgets. Out of all algo-
rithms we see that GSNewR was the only one issuing queries withexclude lists of different sizes, thus exploiting the rich diversity ofquery interfaces. However, the number of such queries is limited.
0
5
10
15
20
GSChao GSHwang GSNewR GSExact
Nu
mb
er
of
Invo
ca
tio
ns
Lv.1Lv.2Lv.3
0
20
40
60
80
100
GSChao GSHwang GSNewR GSExact
Nu
mb
er
of
Invo
ca
tio
ns
Lv.1Lv.2Lv.3
Figure 9: The number of queries issued at different levels used when budgetis set at 10 or 100.
0
5
10
15
20
GSChao GSHwang GSNewR GSExact
Nu
mb
er
of
Invo
ca
tio
ns
(5,0)(5,2)
(10,0)(10,5)(20,0)(20,5)
(20,10)
0
20
40
60
80
100
GSChao GSHwang GSNewR GSExact
Nu
mb
er
of
Invo
ca
tio
ns
(5,0)(5,2)
(10,0)(10,5)(20,0)(20,5)
(20,10)
Figure 10: The different query configurations used when budget is set at 10or 100.
5.3 Take-Away PointsWe have the following recommendations based our results:• Exploiting the structure of the input domain is effective for
maximizing the total number of extracted entities. Also, bal-ancing the exploration of queries for non-observed nodes of theposet with queries over observed nodes of the poset is crucial.• For sparse domains, e.g.., domain specified by large posets with
a small number of populated nodes, one should resort to regres-sion based techniques for estimating the expected gain of fur-ther queries as they result in better performance. However, fordense domains the Chao92Shen estimator results in better per-formance as a larger portion of the underlying population canbe sampled. The size of the input domain and its sparsity areknown in advance to the designer of the querying interface.• For small budgets the proposed estimator-based poset traver-
sal algorithms (i.e., GSChao, GSHwang and GSNewR) exhibitcomparable performance with a traversal algorithm that has or-acle access to the gain of each query to be issued. For largerbudgets we observe that our algorithms are at most 2.2x awayfrom this adaptive querying strategy with perfect information.
6. RELATED WORKThe prior work related to the techniques proposed in this paper
can be placed in a few categories; we describe each of them in turn:Crowd Algorithms: There has been a significant amount of workon designing algorithms where the unit operations (e.g., compar-isons, predicate evaluations, and so on) are performed by humanworkers, including common database primitives such as filter [21],join [18] and max [10], machine learning primitives such as en-tity resolution [5, 33] and clustering [25], as well as data miningprimitives [3, 29].
Previous work on the task of crowdsourced extraction or enumer-ation, i.e., populating a database with entities using the crowd [24,31] is the most related to ours. In both cases, the focus is on asingle entity extraction query; extracting entities from large anddiverse data domains is not considered. Moreover, the proposedtechniques do not support dynamic adaptation of the queries issuedagainst the crowd to optimize for a specified monetary budget.
Knowledge Acquisition Systems: Recent work has also consid-ered the problem of using crowdsourcing within knowledge acqui-sition systems [15, 17, 34]. This line of work suggests using thecrowd for curating knowledge bases (e.g., assessing the validity ofthe extracted facts) and for gathering additional information to beadded to the knowledge base (e.g., missing attributes of an entityor relationships between entities), instead of augmenting the set ofentities themselves. As a result, these papers are solving an orthog-onal problem. The techniques described in this paper for estimat-ing the amount of information from a query and devising queryingstrategies to maximize the amount of extracted information willsurely be beneficial for knowledge extraction systems as well.Deep Web Crawling: A different line of work has focused on dataextraction from the deep web [16, 28]. In such scenarios, data is ob-tained by querying a form-based interface over a hidden databaseand extracting results from the resulting dynamically-generated an-swer (often a list of entities). Typically, such interfaces providepartial list of matching entities to issued queries; the list is usuallylimited to the top-k tuples based on an unknown ranking function.Sheng et al. [28] provide near-optimal algorithms that exploit theexposed structure of the underlying domain to extract all the tuplespresent in the hidden database under consideration. Our work issimilar to this work in that our goal is to also extract entities viaa collection of interfaces (in our case the interfaces correspond toqueries asked to the crowd).
The main difference between this line of work and ours is that an-swers from a hidden database are deterministic, i.e., a query in theirsetting will always retrieve the same top-k tuples. This assumptiondoes not hold in the crowdsourcing scenario considered in this pa-per and thus the proposed techniques are not applicable. In theirsetting, it suffices to ask each query precisely once. In our setting,since crowdsourced entity extraction queries can be viewed as ran-dom samples from an unknown distribution, one needs to make useof the query result estimation techniques introduced in Section 3.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKIn this paper, we studied the problem of crowdsourced entity ex-
traction over large and diverse data domains. We introduced a novelcrowdsourced entity extraction framework that combines statisticaltechniques with an adaptive optimization algorithm to maximizethe total number of unique entities extracted. We proposed a newregression-based technique for estimating the gain of further query-ing when the number of retrieved entities is small with respect tothe total size of the underlying population. We also introduced anew algorithm that exploits the often known structure of the un-derlying data domain to devise adaptive querying strategies. Ourexperimental results show that our techniques extract up to 3.3Xmore entities compared to a collection of baselines, and are at most2.2X away from an omniscient adaptive querying strategy with per-fect information.
Some of the future directions for extending this work include rea-soning about the quality and correctness of the extracted result aswell as extending the proposed techniques to other types of infor-mation extraction tasks. As mentioned before, the techniques pro-posed in this paper do not deal with incomplete and imprecise infor-mation. However, there has been an increasing amount of literatureon addressing these quality issues in crowdsourcing [7, 14, 20, 32].Combining these techniques, or entity resolution techniques [33]that reason about similarity of extracted entities, with our proposedframework is a promising future direction. Finally, it is of particularinterest to consider how the proposed framework can be applied toother budget sensitive information extraction applications includ-ing discovering valuable data sources for integration tasks [26] orcurating and completing a knowledge base [17].
8. REFERENCES[1] Mechanical Turk. http://mturk.com.[2] Y. Amsterdamer, S. B. Davidson, T. Milo, S. Novgorodov, and A. Somech.
OASSIS: query driven crowd mining. SIGMOD, pages 589–600, 2014.[3] Y. Amsterdamer, Y. Grossman, T. Milo, and P. Senellart. Crowd mining.
SIGMOD, pages 241–252, 2013.[4] P. Auer. Using confidence bounds for exploitation-exploration trade-offs.
JMLR, 3:397–422, 2003.[5] K. Bellare, S. Iyengar, A. Parameswaran, and V. Rastogi. Active sampling for
entity matching. In KDD, 2012.[6] A. Chao and S. M. Lee. Estimating the Number of Classes via Sample
Coverage. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(417):210–217,1992.
[7] O. Dekel and O. Shamir. Vox populi: Collecting high-quality labels from acrowd. In COLT, 2009.
[8] E. Even-Dar, S. Mannor, and Y. Mansour. Action elimination and stoppingconditions for the multi-armed bandit and reinforcement learning problems.JMLR, 7:1079–1105, 2006.
[9] M. J. Franklin, D. Kossmann, T. Kraska, S. Ramesh, and R. Xin. Crowddb:Answering queries with crowdsourcing. SIGMOD, pages 61–72, 2011.
[10] S. Guo, A. Parameswaran, and H. Garcia-Molina. So Who Won? Dynamic MaxDiscovery with the Crowd. In SIGMOD, 2012.
[11] J. F. Heltshe and N. E. Forrester. Estimating species richness using the jackknifeprocedure. Biometrics, pages 1–11, 1983.
[12] J. Hortal, P. A. Borges, and C. Gaspar. Evaluating the performance of speciesrichness estimators: sensitivity to sample grain size. Journal of Animal Ecology,75(1):274–287, 2006.
[13] W.-H. Hwang and T.-J. Shen. Small-sample estimation of species richnessapplied to forest communities. Biometrics, 66(4):1052–1060, 2010.
[14] P. G. Ipeirotis, F. Provost, and J. Wang. Quality management on amazonmechanical turk. In HCOMP ’10, 2010.
[15] L. Jiang, Y. Wang, J. Hoffart, and G. Weikum. Crowdsourced entity markup. InCrowdSem.
[16] X. Jin, N. Zhang, and G. Das. Attribute domain discovery for hidden webdatabases. SIGMOD, pages 553–564, 2011.
[17] S. K. Kondredi, P. Triantafillou, and G. Weikum. Combining informationextraction and human computing for crowdsourced knowledge acquisition. In30th IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering, ICDE ’14, 2014.
[18] A. Marcus, E. Wu, D. Karger, S. Madden, and R. Miller. Human-powered sortsand joins. In VLDB, 2012.
[19] A. Marcus, E. Wu, S. Madden, and R. C. Miller. Crowdsourced databases:Query processing with people. pages 211–214. CIDR, 2011.
[20] B. Nushi, A. Singla, A. Gruenheid, A. Krause, and D. Kossmann. Qualityassurance and crowd access optimization: Why does diversity matter? In ICMLWorkshop on Crowdsourcing and Human Computation, 2014.
[21] A. Parameswaran, H. Garcia-Molina, H. Park, N. Polyzotis, A. Ramesh, andJ. Widom. Crowdscreen: Algorithms for filtering data with humans. InSIGMOD, 2012.
[22] A. G. Parameswaran, S. Boyd, H. Garcia-Molina, A. Gupta, N. Polyzotis, andJ. Widom. Optimal crowd-powered rating and filtering algorithms. PVLDB,7(9):685–696, 2014.
[23] A. G. Parameswaran, H. Park, H. Garcia-Molina, N. Polyzotis, and J. Widom.Deco: Declarative crowdsourcing. CIKM, pages 1203–1212, 2012.
[24] H. Park and J. Widom. Crowdfill: A system for collecting structured data fromthe crowd. In 23rd International World Wide Web Conference (WWW), 2014.
[25] R. Gomes et al. Crowdclustering. In NIPS, 2011.[26] T. Rekatsinas, X. L. Dong, L. Getoor, and D. Srivastava. Finding Quality in
Quantity: The Challenge of Discovering Valuable Sources for Integration.CIDR, 2015.
[27] T. Shen, A. Chao, and C. Lin. Predicting the number of new species in furthertaxonomic sampling. Ecology, 84(3), 2003.
[28] C. Sheng, N. Zhang, Y. Tao, and X. Jin. Optimal algorithms for crawling ahidden database in the web. PVLDB, 5(11):1112–1123, July 2012.
[29] V. S. Sheng, F. Provost, and P. Ipeirotis. Get another label? improving dataquality and data mining using multiple, noisy labelers. In SIGKDD, 2008.
[30] O. Teytaud, S. Gelly, and M. Sebag. Anytime many-armed bandits. In CAP07,2007.
[31] B. Trushkowsky, T. Kraska, M. J. Franklin, and P. Sarkar. Crowdsourcedenumeration queries. ICDE, pages 673–684, 2013.
[32] V. C. Raykar et al. Supervised learning from multiple experts: whom to trustwhen everyone lies a bit. In ICML, page 112, 2009.
[33] J. Wang, T. Kraska, M. Franklin, and J. Feng. Crowder: Crowdsourcing entityresolution. In VLDB, 2012.
[34] R. West, E. Gabrilovich, K. Murphy, S. Sun, R. Gupta, and D. Lin. Knowledgebase completion via search-based question answering. WWW, pages 515–526,2014.