On Truthful Item-Acquiring Mechanisms for Reward Maximization (2402.14540v1)
Abstract: In this research, we study the problem that a collector acquires items from the owner based on the item qualities the owner declares and an independent appraiser's assessments. The owner is interested in maximizing the probability that the collector acquires the items and is the only one who knows the items' factual quality. The appraiser performs her duties with impartiality, but her assessment may be subject to random noises, so it may not accurately reflect the factual quality of the items. The main challenge lies in devising mechanisms that prompt the owner to reveal accurate information, thereby optimizing the collector's expected reward. We consider the menu size of mechanisms as a measure of their practicability and study its impact on the attainable expected reward. For the single-item setting, we design optimal mechanisms with a monotone increasing menu size. Although the reward gap between the simplest and optimal mechanisms is bounded, we show that simple mechanisms with a small menu size cannot ensure any positive fraction of the optimal reward of mechanisms with a larger menu size. For the multi-item setting, we show that an ordinal mechanism that only takes the owner's ordering of the items as input is not incentive-compatible. We then propose a set of Union mechanisms that combine single-item mechanisms. Moreover, we run experiments to examine these mechanisms' robustness against the independent appraiser's assessment accuracy and the items' acquiring rate.
- N. B. Shah, “Challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 76–87, 2022.
- I. Stelmakh, N. B. Shah, A. Singh, and H. Daumé III, “A novice-reviewer experiment to address scarcity of qualified reviewers in large conferences,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 35, no. 6, 2021, pp. 4785–4793.
- T. Fiez, N. Shah, and L. Ratliff, “A super* algorithm to optimize paper bidding in peer review,” in Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. PMLR, 2020, pp. 580–589.
- S. Zhao, D. Zhang, Z. Duan, J. Chen, Y.-p. Zhang, and J. Tang, “A novel classification method for paper-reviewer recommendation,” Scientometrics, vol. 115, no. 3, pp. 1293–1313, 2018.
- E. Ford, “Defining and characterizing open peer review: A review of the literature,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 311–326, 2013.
- M. Sun, J. Barry Danfa, and M. Teplitskiy, “Does double-blind peer review reduce bias? evidence from a top computer science conference,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 811–819, 2022.
- S. Hart and N. Nisan, “The menu-size complexity of auctions,” in Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM conference on Electronic commerce, 2013, pp. 565–566.
- Z. Wang and P. Tang, “Optimal mechanisms with simple menus,” in Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM conference on Economics and computation, 2014, pp. 227–240.
- M. Babaioff, Y. A. Gonczarowski, and N. Nisan, “The menu-size complexity of revenue approximation,” Games Econ. Behav., vol. 134, pp. 281–307, 2022.
- J. Goldsmith and R. H. Sloan, “The AI conference paper assignment problem,” in Proceedings AAAI Workshop on Preference Handling for Artificial Intelligence, Vancouver. Vancouver, Canada: AAAI Workshop, 2007, pp. 53–57.
- J. P. Dickerson, K. A. Sankararaman, A. Srinivasan, and P. Xu, “Balancing Relevance and Diversity in Online Bipartite Matching via Submodularity,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019, pp. 1877–1884.
- R. Meir, J. Lang, J. Lesca, N. Mattei, and N. Kaminsky, “A market-inspired bidding scheme for peer review paper assignment,” in 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Palo Alto, United State: AAAI Press, 2021, pp. 4776–4784.
- W. J. Su, “You are the best reviewer of your own papers: An owner-assisted scoring mechanism,” in NeurIPS, 2021, pp. 27 929–27 939.
- ——, “A truthful owner-assisted scoring mechanism,” CoRR, vol. abs/2206.08149, 2022.
- J. Wu, H. Xu, Y. Guo, and W. Su, “An isotonic mechanism for overlapping ownership,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11154, 2023.
- N. Miller, P. Resnick, and R. Zeckhauser, “Eliciting informative feedback: The peer-prediction method,” Management Science, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 1359–1373, 2005.
- B. Faltings and G. Radanovic, “Game theory for data science: Eliciting truthful information,” Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1–151, 2017.
- A. Dasgupta and A. Ghosh, “Crowdsourced judgement elicitation with endogenous proficiency,” in Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, 2013, pp. 319–330.
- Y. Kong and G. Schoenebeck, “An information theoretic framework for designing information elicitation mechanisms that reward truth-telling,” ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–33, 2019.
- R. Frongillo and J. Witkowski, “A geometric perspective on minimal peer prediction,” ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation (TEAC), vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1–27, 2017.
- V. Shnayder, A. Agarwal, R. Frongillo, and D. C. Parkes, “Informed truthfulness in multi-task peer prediction,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 2016, pp. 179–196.
- Y. Kong, “Dominantly truthful multi-task peer prediction with a constant number of tasks,” in Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 2020, pp. 2398–2411.
- Y. Kong and G. Schoenebeck, “Water from two rocks: Maximizing the mutual information,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 2018, pp. 177–194.
- Y. Liu, J. Wang, and Y. Chen, “Surrogate scoring rules,” ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 1–36, 2023.
- G. W. Brier et al., “Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability,” Monthly weather review, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 1–3, 1950.
- I. J. Good, “Rational decisions,” in Breakthroughs in statistics. Springer, 1992, pp. 365–377.
- I. Good, “Comment on “measuring information and uncertainty” by robert j. buehler,” Foundations of Statistical Inference, pp. 337–339, 1971.
- D. Prelec, “A bayesian truth serum for subjective data,” science, vol. 306, no. 5695, pp. 462–466, 2004.
- T. Gneiting and A. E. Raftery, “Strictly proper scoring rules, prediction, and estimation,” Journal of the American statistical Association, vol. 102, no. 477, pp. 359–378, 2007.
- T. N. Palmer, “The economic value of ensemble forecasts as a tool for risk assessment: From days to decades,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society: A journal of the atmospheric sciences, applied meteorology and physical oceanography, vol. 128, no. 581, pp. 747–774, 2002.
- J. Bröcker, “Evaluating raw ensembles with the continuous ranked probability score,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 138, no. 667, pp. 1611–1617, 2012.
- X. A. Gao, J. Zhang, and Y. Chen, “What you jointly know determines how you act: strategic interactions in prediction markets,” in Proceedings of the fourteenth ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. ACM-EC, 2013, pp. 489–506.
- A. Garratt, K. Lee, M. H. Pesaran, and Y. Shin, “Forecast uncertainties in macroeconomic modeling: An application to the uk economy,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 98, no. 464, pp. 829–838, 2003.
- N. Nolde and J. F. Ziegel, “Elicitability and backtesting: Perspectives for banking regulation,” The annals of applied statistics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1833–1874, 2017.
- Y. Jin, P. Lu, Z. G. Tang, and T. Xiao, “Tight revenue gaps among simple mechanisms,” in SODA. SIAM, 2019, pp. 209–228.
- S. Alaei, J. D. Hartline, R. Niazadeh, E. Pountourakis, and Y. Yuan, “Optimal auctions vs. anonymous pricing,” Games Econ. Behav., vol. 118, pp. 494–510, 2019.
- V. Guruswami, J. D. Hartline, A. R. Karlin, D. Kempe, C. Kenyon, and F. McSherry, “On profit-maximizing envy-free pricing,” in SODA. SIAM, 2005, pp. 1164–1173.
- J. M.A.Van Buren, W.E.Watt, “Application of the log-normal and normal distributions to stormwater quality parameters,” Water Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 95–104, 1997.
- G. A. Akerlof, “The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 488–500, 1970.
- P. Agrawal, E. Balkanski, V. Gkatzelis, T. Ou, and X. Tan, “Learning-augmented mechanism design: Leveraging predictions for facility location,” in EC. ACM, 2022, pp. 497–528.
- D. Fotakis, E. Gergatsouli, T. Gouleakis, and N. Patris, “Learning augmented online facility location,” CoRR, vol. abs/2107.08277, 2021.