Eliciting forecasts from self-interested experts: scoring rules for decision makers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scoring rules for eliciting expert predictions of random variables are usu-ally developed assuming that experts derive utility only from the quality of their predictions (e.g., score awarded by the rule, or payoff in a prediction market). We study a more realistic setting in which (a) the principal is a decision maker and will take a decision based on the expert’s prediction; and (b) the expert has an inherent interest in the decision. For example, in a corporate decision market, the expert may derive different levels of utility from the actions taken by her manager. As a consequence the expert will usually have an incentive to misreport her forecast to influence the choice of the decision maker if typical scoring rules are used. We develop a general model for this setting and introduce the concept of a compensation rule. When combined with the expert’s inherent utility for decisions, a compen-sation rule induces a net scoring rule that behaves like a normal scoring rule. Assuming full knowledge of expert utility, we provide a complete characterization of all (strictly) proper compensation rules. We then ana-lyze the situation where the expert’s utility function is not fully known to the decision maker. We show bounds on: (a) expert incentive to misreport; (b) the degree to which an expert will misreport; and (c) decision maker loss in utility due to such uncertainty. These bounds depend in natural ways on the degree of uncertainty, the local degree of convexity of net scoring func-tion, and natural properties of the decision maker’s utility function. They also suggest optimization procedures for the design of compensation rules. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of compensation rules as market scoring rules for self-interested experts in a prediction market. 1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".