Online Reputation and Polling Systems: Data Incest, Social Learning and Revealed Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers online reputation and polling systems where individuals make recommendations based on their private observations and recommendations of friends. Such interaction of individuals and their social influence is modelled as social learning on a directed acyclic graph. Data incest (misinformation propagation) occurs due to unintentional re-use of identical actions in the for- mation of public belief in social learning; the information gathered by each agent is mistakenly considered to be independent. This results in overconfidence and bias in estimates of the state. Necessary and sufficient conditions are given on the structure of information exchange graph to mitigate data incest. Incest removal algorithms are presented. Experimental results on human subjects are presented to illustrate the effect of social influence and data incest on decision making. These experimental results indicate that social learning protocols require careful design to handle and mitigate data incest. The incest removal algorithms are illustrated in an expectation polling system where participants in a poll respond with a summary of their friends' beliefs. Finally, the principle of revealed preferences arising in micro-economics theory is used to parse Twitter datasets to determine if social sensors are utility maximizers and then determine their utility functions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".