MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038683608 · doi:10.1287/opre.1110.0922

A Unified Framework for Dynamic Prediction Market Design

2011· article· en· W2038683608 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOperations Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematical optimizationBiddingFunction (biology)Mechanism designBounded functionConvex optimizationBellman equationRegular polygonMathematical economicsEconomicsMathematicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, coinciding with and perhaps driving the increased popularity of prediction markets, several novel pari-mutuel mechanisms have been developed such as the logarithmic market-scoring rule (LMSR), the cost-function formulation of market makers, utility-based markets, and the sequential convex pari-mutuel mechanism (SCPM). In this work, we present a convex optimization framework that unifies these seemingly unrelated models for centrally organizing contingent claims markets. The existing mechanisms can be expressed in our unified framework by varying the choice of a concave value function. We show that this framework is equivalent to a convex risk minimization model for the market maker. This facilitates a better understanding of the risk attitudes adopted by various mechanisms. The unified framework also leads to easy implementation because we can now find the cost function of a market maker in polynomial time by solving a simple convex optimization problem. In addition to unifying and explaining the existing mechanisms, we use the generalized framework to derive necessary and sufficient conditions for many desirable properties of a prediction market mechanism such as proper scoring, truthful bidding (in a myopic sense), efficient computation, controllable risk measure, and guarantees on the worst-case loss. As a result, we develop the first proper, truthful, risk-controlled, loss-bounded (independent of the number of states) mechanism; none of the previously proposed mechanisms possessed all these properties simultaneously. Thus, our work provides an effective tool for designing new prediction market mechanisms. We also discuss possible applications of our framework to dynamic resource pricing and allocation in general trading markets.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.558
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.003 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it