Incentives for Truthful Evaluations

We consider crowdsourcing problems where the users are asked to provide evaluations for items; the user evaluations are then used directly, or aggregated into a consensus value. Lacking an incentive scheme, users have no motive in making effort in completing the evaluations, providing inaccurate answers instead. We propose incentive schemes that are truthful and cheap: truthful as the optimal user behavior consists in providing accurate evaluations, and cheap because the truthfulness is achieved with little overhead cost. We consider both discrete evaluation tasks, where an evaluation can be done either correctly, or incorrectly, with no degrees of approximation in between, and quantitative evaluation tasks, where evaluations are real numbers, and the error is measured as distance from the correct value. For both types of tasks, we propose hierarchical incentive schemes that can be effected with a small amount of additional evaluations, and that scale to arbitrarily large crowd sizes: they have the property that the strength of the incentive does not weaken with increasing hierarchy depth. Interestingly, we show that for these schemes to work, the only requisite is that workers know their place in the hierarchy in advance.

[1]  Omer Lev,et al.  Impartial Peer Review , 2015, IJCAI.

[2]  David C. Parkes,et al.  Dwelling on the Negative: Incentivizing Effort in Peer Prediction , 2013, HCOMP.

[3]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Methods for ordinal peer grading , 2014, KDD.

[4]  Robert T. Clemen,et al.  Incentive contrats and strictly proper scoring rules , 2002 .

[5]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Minimum payments that reward honest reputation feedback , 2006, EC '06.

[6]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[7]  G. Calvo,et al.  Supervision, Loss of Control, and the Optimum Size of the Firm , 1978, Journal of Political Economy.

[8]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  “Good” Probability Assessors , 1968 .

[9]  Hector Garcia-Molina,et al.  Quality control for comparison microtasks , 2012, CrowdKDD '12.

[10]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Incentives for Truthful Information Elicitation of Continuous Signals , 2014, AAAI.

[11]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Enforcing Truthful Strategies in Incentive Compatible Reputation Mechanisms , 2005, WINE.

[12]  R. Zeckhauser,et al.  Efficiency Despite Mutually Payoff-Relevant Private Information: The Finite Case , 1990 .

[13]  Y. Qian Incentives and Loss of Control in an Optimal Hierarchy , 1994 .

[14]  Eran Halperin,et al.  Improved approximation algorithms for the vertex cover problem in graphs and hypergraphs , 2000, SODA '00.

[15]  Anirban Dasgupta,et al.  Crowdsourced judgement elicitation with endogenous proficiency , 2013, WWW.

[16]  Nir Ailon,et al.  Aggregation of Partial Rankings, p-Ratings and Top-m Lists , 2007, SODA '07.

[17]  Stanislaw Wellisz,et al.  Hierarchy, Ability, and Income Distribution , 1979, Journal of Political Economy.

[18]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

[19]  W. Rudin Principles of mathematical analysis , 1964 .

[20]  Kate Larson,et al.  Inducing Honest Reporting Without Observing Outcomes: An Application to the Peer-Review Process , 2013, 1309.3197.

[21]  Christopher G. Harris You're Hired! An Examination of Crowdsourcing Incentive Models in Human Resource Tasks , 2011 .

[22]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Mechanisms for Making Crowds Truthful , 2014, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[23]  Kevin Leyton-Brown,et al.  Incentivizing Evaluation via Limited Access to Ground Truth: Peer-Prediction Makes Things Worse , 2016, ArXiv.

[24]  Lukas Biewald,et al.  Programmatic Gold: Targeted and Scalable Quality Assurance in Crowdsourcing , 2011, Human Computation.

[25]  Gordon F. Royle,et al.  Algebraic Graph Theory , 2001, Graduate texts in mathematics.

[26]  David C. Parkes,et al.  A Robust Bayesian Truth Serum for Small Populations , 2012, AAAI.

[27]  D. Prelec A Bayesian Truth Serum for Subjective Data , 2004, Science.

[28]  Zhenghao Chen,et al.  Tuned Models of Peer Assessment in MOOCs , 2013, EDM.

[29]  Boi Faltings,et al.  A Robust Bayesian Truth Serum for Non-Binary Signals , 2013, AAAI.

[30]  Paul Resnick,et al.  Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[31]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Incentives for truthful reporting in crowdsourcing , 2012, AAMAS.

[32]  Yiling Chen,et al.  Output Agreement Mechanisms and Common Knowledge , 2014, HCOMP.

[33]  Grant Schoenebeck,et al.  Putting Peer Prediction Under the Micro(economic)scope and Making Truth-Telling Focal , 2016, WINE.

[34]  Blake Riley,et al.  Minimum Truth Serums with Optional Predictions , 2014 .

[35]  O. Williamson Hierarchical Control and Optimum Firm Size , 1967, Journal of Political Economy.

[36]  Moni Naor,et al.  Rank aggregation methods for the Web , 2001, WWW '01.

[37]  Yiling Chen,et al.  Elicitability and knowledge-free elicitation with peer prediction , 2014, AAMAS.

[38]  Yang Cai,et al.  Optimum Statistical Estimation with Strategic Data Sources , 2014, COLT.

[39]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Eliciting truthful measurements from a community of sensors , 2012, 2012 3rd IEEE International Conference on the Internet of Things.

[40]  Kannan Ramchandran,et al.  Truth Serums for Massively Crowdsourced Evaluation Tasks , 2015, ArXiv.

[41]  Arpita Ghosh,et al.  Game Theory and Incentives in Human Computation Systems , 2013, Handbook of Human Computation.

[42]  Noga Alon,et al.  Sum of us: strategyproof selection from the selectors , 2009, TARK XIII.

[43]  Luca de Alfaro,et al.  CrowdGrader: a tool for crowdsourcing the evaluation of homework assignments , 2014, SIGCSE.

[44]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The PeerRank Method for Peer Assessment , 2014, ECAI.