Paper detail

Crowdsourced Judgement Elicitation with Endogenous Proficiency

Crowdsourcing is now widely used to replace judgement by an expert authority with an aggregate evaluation from a number of non-experts, in applications ranging from rating and categorizing online content to evaluation of student assignments in massively open online courses via peer grading. A key issue in these settings, where direct monitoring is infeasible, is incentivizing agents in the `crowd' to put in effort to make good evaluations, as well as to truthfully report their evaluations. This leads to a new family of information elicitation problems with unobservable ground truth, where an agent's proficiency- the probability with which she correctly evaluates the underlying ground truth- is endogenously determined by her strategic choice of how much effort to put into the task. Our main contribution is a simple, new, mechanism for binary information elicitation for multiple tasks when agents have endogenous proficiencies, with the following properties: (i) Exerting maximum effort followed by truthful reporting of observations is a Nash equilibrium. (ii) This is the equilibrium with maximum payoff to all agents, even when agents have different maximum proficiencies, can use mixed strategies, and can choose a different strategy for each of their tasks. Our information elicitation mechanism requires only minimal bounds on the priors, asks agents to only report their own evaluations, and does not require any conditions on a diverging number of agent reports per task to achieve its incentive properties. The main idea behind our mechanism is to use the presence of multiple tasks and ratings to identify and penalize low-effort agreement: the mechanism rewards agents for agreeing with a `reference' rater on a task but also penalizes for blind agreement by subtracting out a statistic term designed so that agents obtain reward only when they put effort into their observations.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.