[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
research-article

Dominantly Truthful Peer Prediction Mechanisms with a Finite Number of Tasks

Published: 10 April 2024 Publication History

Abstract

In the setting where participants are asked multiple similar possibly subjective multi-choice questions (e.g., Do you like Panda Express? Y/N; Do you like Chick-fil-A? Y/N), a series of peer prediction mechanisms have been designed to incentivize honest reports and some of them achieve dominantly truthfulness: Truth-telling is a dominant strategy and strictly dominates other “non-permutation strategy” with some mild conditions. However, those mechanisms require the participants to perform an infinite number of tasks. When the participants perform a finite number of tasks, these mechanisms only achieve approximated dominant truthfulness. The existence of a dominantly truthful multi-task peer prediction mechanism that only requires a finite number of tasks remains to be an open question that may have a negative result, even with full prior knowledge.
This article answers this open question by proposing a family of mechanisms, VMI-Mechanisms, that are dominantly truthful with a finite number of tasks. A special case of this family, DMI-Mechanism, only requires ≥ 2C tasks where C is the number of choices for each question (C=2 for binary-choice questions). The implementation of these mechanisms does not require any prior knowledge (detail-free) and only requires ≥ 2 participants. To the best of our knowledge, any mechanism of the family is the first dominantly truthful peer prediction mechanism that works for a finite number of tasks.
The core of these new mechanisms is a new family of information-monotone information measures: volume mutual information (VMI). VMI is based on a simple geometric information measure design method, the volume method. The volume method measures the informativeness of an object by “counting” the number of objects that are less informative than it. In other words, the more objects that the object of interest dominates, the more informative it is considered to be.
Finally, in the setting where agents need to invest efforts to obtain their private signals, we show how to select the mechanism to optimally incentivize efforts among a proper set of VMI-Mechanisms.

References

[1]
Johannes Abeler, Daniele Nosenzo, and Collin Raymond. 2019. Preferences for truth-telling. Econometrica 87, 4 (2019), 1115–1153. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/45172344
[2]
Arpit Agarwal, Debmalya Mandal, David C. Parkes, and Nisarg Shah. 2020. Peer prediction with heterogeneous users. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 8, 1, Article 2 (Mar2020), 34 pages. DOI:
[3]
Syed Mumtaz Ali and Samuel D. Silvey. 1966. A general class of coefficients of divergence of one distribution from another. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 28, 1 (1966), 131–142. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984279
[4]
L.M. Bregman. 1967. The relaxation method of finding the common point of convex sets and its application to the solution of problems in convex programming. USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics 7, 3 (1967), 200–217. DOI:
[5]
Noah Burrell and Grant Schoenebeck. 2023. Measurement integrity in peer prediction: A peer assessment case study. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 369–389. DOI:
[6]
Yang Cai, Constantinos Daskalakis, and Christos Papadimitriou. 2015. Optimum statistical estimation with strategic data sources. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference on Learning Theory . Peter Grünwald, Elad Hazan, and Satyen Kale (Eds.), PMLR, Vol. 40, Paris, 280–296. Retrieved from https://proceedings.mlr.press/v40/Cai15.html
[7]
Stefano Coniglio, Nicola Gatti, and Alberto Marchesi. 2020. Computing a pessimistic stackelberg equilibrium with multiple followers: The mixed-pure case. Algorithmica 82, 5 (2020), 1189–1238. DOI:
[8]
Vincent Conitzer and Tuomas Sandholm. 2006. Computing the optimal strategy to commit to. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce . ACM, New York, NY, 82–90. DOI:
[9]
Imre Csiszár and Paul C. Shields. 2004. Information theory and statistics: A tutorial. Foundations and Trends® in Communications and Information Theory 1, 4 (2004), 417–528. DOI:
[10]
Anirban Dasgupta and Arpita Ghosh. 2013. Crowdsourced judgement elicitation with endogenous proficiency. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web . ACM, New York, NY, 319–330. DOI:
[11]
Boi Faltings. 2023. Game-theoretic mechanisms for eliciting accurate information. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Edith Elkind (Ed.), International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 6601–6609. DOI:Survey Track.
[12]
Boi Faltings, Radu Jurca, Pearl Pu, and Bao Duy Tran. 2014. Incentives to counter bias in human computation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing. Vol. 2, 59–66. DOI:
[13]
Rafael Frongillo and Jens Witkowski. 2017. A geometric perspective on minimal peer prediction. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 5, 3, Article 17 (Jul2017), 27 pages. DOI:
[14]
Xi Alice Gao, Andrew Mao, Yiling Chen, and Ryan Prescott Adams. 2014. Trick or treat: Putting peer prediction to the test. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 507–524. DOI:
[15]
Alice Gao, James Wright, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2020. Incentivizing evaluation with peer prediction and limited access to ground truth (extended abstract). In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’20). 5140–5144. DOI:
[16]
Tilmann Gneiting and Adrian E. Raftery. 2007. Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association 102, 477 (2007), 359–378. DOI:
[17]
Naman Goel and Boi Faltings. 2019. Deep bayesian trust: A dominant and fair incentive mechanism for crowd. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 33, 1996–2003. DOI:
[18]
Jason D. Hartline, Liren Shan, Yingkai Li, and Yifan Wu. 2023. Optimal scoring rules for multi-dimensional effort. In Proceedings of the 36th Conference on Learning Theory . Gergely Neu and Lorenzo Rosasco (Eds.), PMLR, Vol. 195, 2624–2650. Retrieved from https://proceedings.mlr.press/v195/hartline23a.html
[19]
Harold V. Henderson and S. R. Searle. 1981. The vec-permutation matrix, the vec operator and kronecker products: A review. Linear and Multilinear Algebra 9, 4 (1981), 271–288. DOI:
[20]
Radu Jurca and Boi Faltings. 2007. Collusion-resistant, incentive-compatible feedback payments. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce . ACM, New York, NY, 200–209. DOI:
[21]
Radu Jurca and Boi Faltings. 2009. Mechanisms for making crowds truthful. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 34, 1 (Mar2009), 209–253.
[22]
Vijay Kamble, Nihar Shah, David Marn, Abhay Parekh, and Kannan Ramchandran. 2023. The square root agreement rule for incentivizing truthful feedback on online platforms. Management Science 69, 1 (Jan2023), 377–403. DOI:
[23]
Yuqing Kong. 2020. Dominantly truthful multi-task peer prediction with a constant number of tasks. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2398–2411.
[24]
Yuqing Kong. 2022. More dominantly truthful multi-task peer prediction with a finite number of tasks. In Proceedings of the 13th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference . Mark Braverman (Ed.), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 215, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, 95:1–95:20. DOI:
[25]
Yuqing Kong, Katrina Ligett, and Grant Schoenebeck. 2016. Putting peer prediction under the microeconomicscope and making truth-telling focal. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics - Volume 10123 . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 251–264. DOI:
[26]
Yuqing Kong and Grant Schoenebeck. 2018c. Eliciting expertise without verification. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 195–212. DOI:
[27]
Yuqing Kong and Grant Schoenebeck. 2018a. Equilibrium selection in information elicitation without verification via information monotonicity. In Proceedings of the 9th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference . Anna R. Karlin (Ed.), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 94, Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, 13:1–13:20. DOI:
[28]
Yuqing Kong and Grant Schoenebeck. 2018b. Water from two rocks: Maximizing the mutual information. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 177–194. DOI:
[29]
Yuqing Kong and Grant Schoenebeck. 2019. An information theoretic framework for designing information elicitation mechanisms that reward truth-telling. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 7, 1, Article 2 (Jan2019), 33 pages. DOI:
[30]
Yuqing Kong, Grant Schoenebeck, Biaoshuai Tao, and Fang-Yi Yu. 2020. Information elicitation mechanisms for statistical estimation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 34, 2095–2102. DOI:
[31]
Yingkai Li, Jason D. Hartline, Liren Shan, and Yifan Wu. 2022. Optimization of scoring rules. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 988–989. DOI:
[32]
Yang Liu and Yiling Chen. 2017a. Machine-learning aided peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 63–80. DOI:
[33]
Yang Liu and Yiling Chen. 2017b. Sequential peer prediction: Learning to elicit effort using posted prices. In Proceedings of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . AAAI Press, 607–613.
[34]
Yang Liu, Juntao Wang, and Yiling Chen. 2023. Surrogate scoring rules. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 10, 3, Article 12 (Feb2023), 36 pages. DOI:
[35]
Debmalya Mandal, Matthew Leifer, David C. Parkes, Galen Pickard, and Victor Shnayder. 2016. Peer prediction with heterogeneous tasks. In Proceedings of CrowdML Workshop at (NIPS’6), Barcelona, Spain.
[36]
Debmalya Mandal, Goran Radanović, and David C. Parkes. 2020. The effectiveness of peer prediction in long-term forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 34, 2160–2167. DOI:
[37]
Edgar C. Merkle and Mark Steyvers. 2013. Choosing a strictly proper scoring rule. Decision Analysis 10, 4 (2013), 292–304. DOI:
[38]
Nolan Miller, Paul Resnick, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2005. Eliciting informative feedback: The peer-prediction method. Management Science 51, 9 (2005), 1359–1373. DOI:
[39]
Eric Neyman, Georgy Noarov, and S. Matthew Weinberg. 2021. Binary scoring rules that incentivize precision. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 718–733. DOI:
[40]
Kent Osband. 1989. Optimal forecasting incentives. Journal of Political Economy 97, 5 (1989), 1091–1112. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1831887
[41]
Dražen Prelec. 2004. A Bayesian truth serum for subjective data. Science 306, 5695 (Oct2004), 462–466.
[42]
Dražen Prelec, H. Sebastian Seung, and John McCoy. 2017. A solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem. Nature 541, 7638 (Jan2017), 532–535.
[43]
Goran Radanovic and Boi Faltings. 2013. A robust Bayesian truth serum for non-binary signals. In Proceedings of the 27th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . AAAI Press, 833–839.
[44]
Goran Radanovic and Boi Faltings. 2014. Incentives for truthful information elicitation of continuous signals. In Proceedings of the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press, 770–776.
[45]
Goran Radanovic and Boi Faltings. 2015a. Incentive schemes for participatory sensing. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems . International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 1081–1089.
[46]
Goran Radanovic and Boi Faltings. 2015b. Incentives for subjective evaluations with private beliefs. In Proceedings of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . AAAI Press, 1014–1020.
[47]
Goran Radanovic, Boi Faltings, and Radu Jurca. 2016. Incentives for effort in crowdsourcing using the peer truth serum. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology 7, 4, Article 48 (Mar2016), 28 pages. DOI:
[48]
Natalia Rigol and Benjamin Roth. 2016. Paying for the Truth: The Efficacy of a Peer Prediction Mechanism in the Field. Working Paper.
[49]
Blake Riley. 2014. Minimum truth serums with optional predictions. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Social Computing and User Generated Content.
[50]
Grant Schoenebeck and Fang-Yi Yu. 2021. Learning and strongly truthful multi-task peer prediction: A variational approach. In Proceedings of the 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference .James R. Lee (Ed.), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 185, Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, 78:1–78:20. DOI:
[51]
Grant Schoenebeck and Fang-Yi Yu. 2023. Two strongly truthful mechanisms for three heterogeneous agents answering one question. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation 10, 4, Article 14 (Feb2023), 26 pages.
[52]
Grant Schoenebeck, Fang-Yi Yu, and Yichi Zhang. 2021. Information elicitation from rowdy crowds. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 . ACM, New York, NY, 3974–3986. DOI:
[53]
Eugene Seneta. 2006. Non-Negative Matrices and Markov Chains. Springer Science & Business Media.
[54]
Claude E. Shannon. 2001. A mathematical theory of communication. SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 5, 1 (Jan2001), 3–55. DOI:
[55]
Victor Shnayder, Arpit Agarwal, Rafael Frongillo, and David C. Parkes. 2016a. Informed truthfulness in multi-task peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 179–196. DOI:
[56]
Victor Shnayder, Rafael M. Frongillo, and David C. Parke. 2016b. Measuring performance of peer prediction mechanisms using replicator dynamics. In Proceedings of the 25th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . AAAI Press, 2611–2617.
[57]
Victor Shnayder and David Parkes. 2016. Practical peer prediction for peer assessment. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing. Vol. 4, 199–208. DOI:
[58]
Leon Simon. 1984. Lectures on Geometric Measure Theory. Vol. 3. The Australian National University, Mathematical Sciences Institute.
[59]
Luis von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. 2004. Labeling images with a computer game. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, New York, NY, 319–326. DOI:
[60]
Bernhard von Stengel and Shmuel Zamir. 2010. Leadership games with convex strategy sets. Games and Economic Behavior 69, 2 (2010), 446–457. DOI:
[61]
Juntao Wang, Yang Liu, and Yiling Chen. 2021. Forecast aggregation via peer prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 9. 131–142. DOI:
[62]
Robert L. Winkler. 1969. Scoring rules and the evaluation of probability assessors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 64, 327 (1969), 1073–1078. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2283486
[63]
Jens Witkowski, Yoram Bachrach, Peter Key, and David C. Parkes. 2013. Dwelling on the negative: Incentivizing effort in peer prediction. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, Vol. 1. 190–197. DOI:
[64]
Jens Witkowski and David C. Parkes. 2012b. Peer prediction without a common prior. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce . ACM, New York, NY, 964–981. DOI:
[65]
Jens Witkowski and David C. Parkes. 2012a. A robust Bayesian truth serum for small populations. In Proceedings of the 26th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence . AAAI Press, 1492–1498.
[66]
Jens Witkowski and David C. Parkes. 2013. Learning the prior in minimal peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Social Computing and User Generated Content.
[67]
Yilun Xu, Peng Cao, Yuqing Kong, and Yizhou Wang. 2019. L_DMI: A novel information-theoretic loss function for training deep nets robust to label noise. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d'Alché-Buc, E. Fox, and R. Garnett (Eds.), Vol. 32, Curran Associates, Inc. Retrieved from https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2019/file/8a1ee9f2b7abe6e88d1a479ab6a42c5e-Paper.pdf
[68]
Peter Zhang and Yiling Chen. 2014. Elicitability and knowledge-free elicitation with peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems . International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, SC, 245–252.
[69]
Shuran Zheng, Fang-Yi Yu, and Yiling Chen. 2021. The limits of multi-task peer prediction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation . ACM, New York, NY, 907–926. DOI:

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Recent Trends in Information ElicitationACM SIGecom Exchanges10.1145/3699824.369983622:1(122-134)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Eliciting Informative Text Evaluations with Large Language ModelsProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3670865.3673532(582-612)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of the ACM
Journal of the ACM  Volume 71, Issue 2
April 2024
627 pages
EISSN:1557-735X
DOI:10.1145/3613546
Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 10 April 2024
Online AM: 23 December 2023
Accepted: 15 December 2023
Revised: 08 September 2023
Received: 02 May 2022
Published in JACM Volume 71, Issue 2

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Peer prediction
  2. information elicitation
  3. mutual information
  4. information theory

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Funding Sources

  • National Natural Science Foundation of China

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)461
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30
Reflects downloads up to 11 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Recent Trends in Information ElicitationACM SIGecom Exchanges10.1145/3699824.369983622:1(122-134)Online publication date: 8-Oct-2024
  • (2024)Eliciting Informative Text Evaluations with Large Language ModelsProceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation10.1145/3670865.3673532(582-612)Online publication date: 8-Jul-2024

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

Full Text

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media