Strictly Proper Scoring Mechanisms Without Expected Arbitrage

Jack Edwards
{"title":"Strictly Proper Scoring Mechanisms Without Expected Arbitrage","authors":"Jack Edwards","doi":"arxiv-2409.07046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"When eliciting forecasts from a group of experts, it is important to reward\npredictions so that market participants are incentivized to tell the truth.\nExisting mechanisms partially accomplish this but remain susceptible to groups\nof experts colluding to increase their expected reward, meaning that no\naggregation of predictions can be fully trusted to represent the true beliefs\nof forecasters. This paper presents two novel scoring mechanisms which elicit\ntruthful forecasts from any group of experts, even if they can collude or\naccess each other's predictions. The key insight of this approach is a\nrandomization component which maintains strict properness but prevents experts\nfrom coordinating dishonest reports in advance. These mechanisms are strictly\nproper and do not admit expected arbitrage, resolving an open question in the\nfield.","PeriodicalId":501188,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - ECON - Theoretical Economics","volume":"131 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - ECON - Theoretical Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2409.07046","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When eliciting forecasts from a group of experts, it is important to reward predictions so that market participants are incentivized to tell the truth. Existing mechanisms partially accomplish this but remain susceptible to groups of experts colluding to increase their expected reward, meaning that no aggregation of predictions can be fully trusted to represent the true beliefs of forecasters. This paper presents two novel scoring mechanisms which elicit truthful forecasts from any group of experts, even if they can collude or access each other's predictions. The key insight of this approach is a randomization component which maintains strict properness but prevents experts from coordinating dishonest reports in advance. These mechanisms are strictly proper and do not admit expected arbitrage, resolving an open question in the field.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
没有预期套利的严格适当的评分机制
现有的机制虽然部分实现了这一目标,但仍然容易受到专家组串通以提高预期回报的影响,这意味着没有任何一种预测集合能够完全代表预测者的真实想法。本文提出了两种新颖的评分机制,它们可以从任何一组专家那里获得真实的预测,即使他们可以相互串通或获取对方的预测。这种方法的关键之处在于随机化组件,它既能保持严格的正确性,又能防止专家事先协调不诚实的报告。这些机制是严格适当的,不允许预期套利,解决了该领域的一个未决问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Expert Classification Aggregation Approximately Optimal Auctions With a Strong Bidder Beyond Rationality: Unveiling the Role of Animal Spirits and Inflation Extrapolation in Central Bank Communication of the US The Extreme Points of Fusions A Statistical Equilibrium Approach to Adam Smith's Labor Theory of Value
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1