skip to main content
10.1145/3292500.3330844acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Hidden POI Ranking with Spatial Crowdsourcing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 July 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Exploring Hidden Points of Interest (H-POIs), which are rarely referred in online search and recommendation systems due to insufficient check-in records, benefits business and individuals. In this work, we investigate how to eliminate the hidden feature of H-POIs by enhancing conventional crowdsourced ranking aggregation framework with heterogeneous (i.e., H-POI and Popular Point of Interest (P-POI)) pairwise tasks. We propose a two-phase solution focusing on both effectiveness and efficiency. In offline phase, we substantially narrow down the search space by retrieving a set of geo-textual valid heterogeneous pairs as the initial candidates and develop two practical data-driven strategies to compute worker qualities. In the online phase, we minimize the cost of assessment by introducing an active learning algorithm to jointly select pairs and workers with worker quality, uncertainty of P-POI rankings and uncertainty of the model taken into account. In addition, a (Minimum Spanning) Tree-constrained Skip search strategy is proposed for the purpose of reducing search time cost. Empirical experiments based on real POI datasets verify that the ranking accuracy of H-POIs can be greatly improved with small number of query iterations.

References

  1. Hirotogu Akaike. 1998. Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle .Springer New York, 199--213.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen Cheng, Haiqin Yang, Irwin King, and Michael R. Lyu. 2012. Fused Matrix Factorization with Geographical and Social Influence in Location-based Social Networks. In AAAI. 17--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. David L Davies and Donald W Bouldin. 1979. A Cluster Separation Measure. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, Vol. PAMI-1, 2 (1979), 224--227. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Dingxiong Deng, Cyrus Shahabi, and Linhong Zhu. 2015. Task matching and scheduling for multiple workers in spatial crowdsourcing. In SIGSPATIAL. 21. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Yuxiao Dong, Nitesh V. Chawla, and Ananthram Swami. 2017. Metapath2Vec: Scalable Representation Learning for Heterogeneous Networks. In KDD. 135--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Brian Eriksson. 2013. Learning to Top-K Search using Pairwise Comparisons. In AISTATS, Vol. 31. 265--273.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Stephen Guo, Aditya Parameswaran, and Hector Garcia-Molina. 2012. So Who Won?: Dynamic Max Discovery with the Crowd. In SIGMOD. 385--396. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Tsunenori Ishioka. 2000. Extended K-means with an Efficient Estimation of the Number of Clusters. In ICML.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Leyla Kazemi, Cyrus Shahabi, and Lei Chen. 2013. GeoTruCrowd: Trustworthy Query Answering with Spatial Crowdsourcing. In SIGSPATIAL. 314--323. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Asif R. Khan and Hector Garcia-Molina. 2014. Hybrid Strategies for Finding the Max with the Crowd: Technical Report. Technical Report. Stanford University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Joseph B Kruskal. 1956. On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 7, 1 (1956), 48--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Kaiyu Li, Xiaohang Zhang, and Guoliang Li. 2018. A Rating-Ranking Method for Crowdsourced Top-k Computation. In SIGMOD. 975--990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Defu Lian, Zhao Cong, Xie Xing, Guangzhong Sun, Enhong Chen, and Rui Yong. 2014. GeoMF: joint geographical modeling and matrix factorization for point-of-interest recommendation. In KDD. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. CoRR, Vol. abs/1301.3781 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheng Peng, Lian Xiang, Chen Lei, and Cyrus Shahabi. 2017. Prediction-Based Task Assignment on Spatial Crowdsourcing. In ICDE. 997--1008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Bryan Perozzi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Steven Skiena. 2014. DeepWalk: Online Learning of Social Representations. CoRR, Vol. abs/1403.6652 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J.-C. Pomerol and S. Barba-Romero. 2012. Sophisticated voting with information for two voting functions. Springer Science and Business Media, Vol. 25 (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Y. Chen A. Mao T. Pfeiffer, X. A. Gao and D. G. Rand. 2012. Adaptive polling for information aggregation. In AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Y. Tong, L. Chen, Z. Zhou, H. V. Jagadish, L. Shou, and W. Lv. 2018. SLADE: A Smart Large-Scale Task Decomposer in Crowdsourcing. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 30, 8 (2018), 1588--1601.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Yongxin Tong, Jieying She, Bolin Ding, Libin Wang, and Chen Lei. 2016. Online mobile Micro-Task Allocation in spatial crowdsourcing. In ICDE. 49--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. F.L. Wauthier, Michael Jordan, and N Jojic. 2013. Efficient ranking from pairwise comparisons. ICML (01 2013), 1146--1154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Y. Yao X. Jiang, L. Lim and Y. Ye. 2011. Statistical ranking and combinatorial hodge theory., Vol. 127, 1 (2011), 203--244.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Chen Xi, Paul N. Bennett, Kevyn Collins-Thompson, and Eric Horvitz. 2013. Pairwise ranking aggregation in a crowdsourced setting. In WSDM. 193--202. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Mao Ye, Peifeng Yin, Wang-Chien Lee, and Dik-Lun Lee. 2011. Exploiting Geographical Influence for Collaborative Point-of-interest Recommendation. In SIGIR. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 325--334. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. J-D Zhang and C-Y Chow. 2015. GeoSoCa: Exploiting Geographical, Social and Categorical Correlations for Point-of-Interest Recommendations. In SIGIR. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. X. Zhang, G. Li, and J. Feng. 2016. Crowdsourced Top-k Algorithms: An Experimental Evaluation. Proc. VLDB Endow., Vol. 9, 8 (April 2016), 612--623. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Yan Zhao, Yang Li, Yu Wang, Han Su, and Kai Zheng. 2017. Destination-aware Task Assignment in Spatial Crowdsourcing. In CIKM. 297--306. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Yan Zhao, Jinfu Xia, Guanfeng Liu, Han Su, Defu Lian, Shuo Shang, and Kai Zheng. 2019. Preference-aware Task Assignment in Spatial Crowdsourcing. In AAAI.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Hidden POI Ranking with Spatial Crowdsourcing

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        KDD '19: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
        July 2019
        3305 pages
        ISBN:9781450362016
        DOI:10.1145/3292500

        Copyright © 2019 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 25 July 2019

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        KDD '19 Paper Acceptance Rate110of1,200submissions,9%Overall Acceptance Rate1,133of8,635submissions,13%

        Upcoming Conference

        KDD '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader