Peer grading systems work well only if users have incentives to grade truthfully. An example of non-truthful grading, that we observed in classrooms, consists in students assigning the maximum grade to all submissions. With a naive grading scheme, such as averaging the assigned grades, all students would receive the maximum grade. In this paper, we develop three grading schemes that provide incentives for truthful peer grading. In the first scheme, the instructor grades a fraction p of the submissions, and penalizes students whose grade deviates from the instructor grade. We provide lower bounds on p to ensure truthfulness, and conclude that these schemes work only for moderate class sizes, up to a few hundred students. To overcome this limitation, we propose a hierarchical extension of this supervised scheme, and we show that it can handle classes of any size with bounded (and little) instructor work, and is therefore applicable to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Finally, we propose unsupervised incentive schemes, in which the student incentive is based on statistical properties of the grade distribution, without any grading required by the instructor. We show that the proposed unsupervised schemes provide incentives to truthful grading, at the price of being possibly unfair to individual students.
The peer-prediction method @cite_21 uses proper scoring rules to reward experts depending on how good their input for predicting other experts' reports. Similarly, the model described in @cite_12 evaluates experts depending on how good their reports are in predicting the consensus of other workers.
@cite_21 @cite_12
2017669196 2109062107
When eliciting opinions from a group of experts, traditional devices used to promote honest reporting assume that there is an observable future outcome. In practice, however, this assumption is not always reasonable. In this paper, we propose a scoring method built on strictly proper scoring rules to induce honest reporting without assuming observable outcomes. Our method provides scores based on pairwise comparisons between the reports made by each pair of experts in the group. For ease of exposition, we introduce our scoring method by illustrating its application to the peer-review process. In order to do so, we start by modeling the peer-review process using a Bayesian model where the uncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript is taken into account. Thereafter, we introduce our scoring method to evaluate the reported reviews. Under the assumptions that reviewers are Bayesian decision-makers and that they cannot influence the reviews of other reviewers, we show that risk-neutral reviewers strictly maximize their expected scores by honestly disclosing their reviews. We also show how the group's scores can be used to find a consensual review. Experimental results show that encouraging honest reporting through the proposed scoring method creates more accurate reviews than the traditional peer-review process. When a decision maker (DM) contracts with an expert to provide information, the nature of the contract can, create incentives for the expert, and it is up to the DM to ensure that the contract provides incentives that align the expert’s and DM’s interests. In this paper, scoring rules (and related functions) are viewed as such contracts and are reinterpreted in terms of agency theory and the theory of revelation games from economics. Although scoring rules have typically been discussed in the literature as devices for eliciting and evaluating subjective probabilities, this study relies on the fact that strictly proper scoring rules reward greater expertise as well as honest revelation. We describe conditions under which a DM can use a strictly proper scoring rule as a contract to give an expert an incentive to gather an amount of information that is optimal from the DM’s perspective. The conditions we consider focus on the expert’s cost structure, and we find that the DM must have substantial knowledge of that cost structure in order to design a specific contract that provides the correct incentives. The model and analysis suggest arguments for hiring and maintaining experts in-house rather than using outside consultants. Abstract Intelligent systems often depend on data provided by information agents, for example, sensor data or crowdsourced human computation. Providing accurate and relevant data requires costly effort that agents may not always be willing to provide. Thus, it becomes important not only to verify the correctness of data, but also to provide incentives so that agents that provide high-quality data are rewarded while those that do not are discouraged by low rewards. We cover different settings and the assumptions they admit, including sensing, human computation, peer grading, reviews, and predictions. We survey different incentive mechanisms, including proper scoring rules, prediction markets and peer prediction, Bayesian Truth Serum, Peer Truth Serum, Correlated Agreement, and the settings where each of them would be suitable. As an alternative, we also consider reputation mechanisms. We complement the game-theoretic analysis with practical examples of applications in prediction platforms, community sensin... We consider algorithms for combining advice from a set of experts. In each trial, the algorithm receives the predictions of the experts and produces its own prediction. A loss function is applied to measure the discrepancy between the predictions and actual observations. The algorithm keeps a weight for each expert. At each trial the weights are first used to help produce the prediction and then updated according to the observed outcome. Our starting point is Vovk's Aggregating Algorithm, in which the weights have a simple form: the weight of an expert decreases exponentially as a function of the loss incurred by the expert. The prediction of the Aggregating Algorithm is typically a non-linear function of the weights and the experts' predictions. We analyze here a simplified algorithm in which the weights are as in the original Aggregating Algorithm, but the prediction is simply the weighted average of the experts' predictions. We show that for a large class of loss functions, even with the simplified prediction rule the additional loss of the algorithm over the loss of the best expert is at most c ln n, where n is the number of experts and c a constant that depends on the loss function. Thus, the bound is of the same form as the known bounds for the Aggregating Algorithm, although the constants here are not quite as good. We use relative entropy to rewrite the bounds in a stronger form and to motivate the update.