Subsidized Prediction Mechanisms for Risk-Averse Agents

In this article, we study the design and characterization of sequential prediction mechanisms in the presence of agents with unknown risk aversion. We formulate a collection of desirable properties for any sequential forecasting mechanism. We present a randomized mechanism that satisfies all of these properties, including a guarantee that it is myopically optimal for each agent to report honestly, regardless of her degree of risk aversion. We observe, however, that the mechanism has an undesirable side effect: each agent's expected reward, normalized against the inherent value of her private information, decreases exponentially with the number of agents. We prove a negative result showing that this is unavoidable: any mechanism that is myopically strategyproof for agents of all risk types, while also satisfying other natural properties of sequential forecasting mechanisms, must sometimes result in a player getting an exponentially small expected normalized reward.

[1]  Franklin Allen Notes---Discovering Personal Probabilities When Utility Functions are Unknown , 1987 .

[2]  R. L. Winkler Scoring Rules and the Evaluation of Probability Assessors , 1969 .

[3]  S. Cherry,et al.  Bet On It , 2007, IEEE Spectrum.

[4]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[5]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Aggregating probabilistic beliefs: Market mechanisms and graphical representations , 1999 .

[6]  Stefan Luckner,et al.  Fraud detection in play-money prediction markets , 2010, Inf. Syst. E Bus. Manag..

[7]  ConitzerVincent,et al.  The ACM transactions on economics and computation , 2013 .

[8]  Lance Fortnow,et al.  Gaming Prediction Markets: Equilibrium Strategies with a Market Maker , 2010, Algorithmica.

[9]  David M. Pennock A dynamic pari-mutuel market for hedging, wagering, and information aggregation , 2004, EC '04.

[10]  Andrew B. Whinston,et al.  Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design - The Case for Incentive Alignment , 2001, Inf. Syst. Res..

[11]  M. Okamoto Some inequalities relating to the partial sum of binomial probabilities , 1959 .

[12]  A. H. Murphy,et al.  Nonlinear Utility and the Probability Score , 1970 .

[13]  John Langford,et al.  Self-financed wagering mechanisms for forecasting , 2008, EC '08.

[14]  Thomas A. Rietz,et al.  Information Systems Frontiers 5:1, 79–93, 2003 C ○ 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Manufactured in The Netherlands. Prediction Markets as Decision Support Systems , 2022 .

[15]  Thomas A. Rietz,et al.  Results from a Dozen Years of Election Futures Markets Research , 2008 .

[16]  R. L. Winkler,et al.  Separating probability elicitation from utilities , 1988 .

[17]  Robin Hanson,et al.  Combinatorial Information Market Design , 2003, Inf. Syst. Frontiers.

[18]  G. Brier VERIFICATION OF FORECASTS EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF PROBABILITY , 1950 .

[19]  David M. Pennock,et al.  A Utility Framework for Bounded-Loss Market Makers , 2007, UAI.

[20]  Ramesh Johari,et al.  Information aggregation in smooth markets , 2010, EC '10.

[21]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Forecasting uncertain events with small groups , 2001, EC '01.

[22]  Robert Nau,et al.  The Aggregation of Imprecise Probabilities , 2002, ISIPTA.

[23]  J. Sonnemans,et al.  A Truth Serum for Non-Bayesians: Correcting Proper Scoring Rules for Risk Attitudes* , 2009 .

[24]  Zizhuo Wang,et al.  A unified framework for dynamic pari-mutuel information market design , 2009, EC '09.

[25]  R. L. Winkler The Quantification of Judgment: Some Methodological Suggestions , 1967 .