No-Regret Incentive-Compatible Online Learning under Exact Truthfulness with Non-Myopic Experts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study an online forecasting setting in which, over T rounds, N strategic experts each report a forecast to a mechanism, the mechanism selects one forecast, and then the outcome is revealed. In any given round, each expert has a belief about the outcome, but the expert wishes to select its report so as to maximize the total number of times it is selected. The goal of the mechanism is to obtain low belief regret: the difference between its cumulative loss (based on its selected forecasts) and the cumulative loss of the best expert in hindsight (as measured by the experts' beliefs). We consider exactly truthful mechanisms for non-myopic experts, meaning that truthfully reporting its belief strictly maximizes the expert's subjective probability of being selected in any future round. Even in the full-information setting, it is an open problem to obtain the first no-regret exactly truthful mechanism in this setting. We develop the first no-regret mechanism for this setting via an online extension of the Independent-Event Lotteries Forecasting Competition Mechanism (I-ELF). By viewing this online I-ELF as a novel instance of Follow the Perturbed Leader (FPL) with noise based on random walks with loss-dependent perturbations, we obtain [EQUATION] regret. Our results are fueled by new tail bounds for Poisson binomial random variables that we develop. We extend our results to the bandit setting, where we give an exactly truthful mechanism obtaining Õ(T2/3N1/3) regret; this is the first no-regret result even among approximately truthful mechanisms.
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 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".