Representing Aggregate Belief through the Competitive Equilibrium of a Securities Market

We consider the problem of belief aggregation: given a group of individual agents with probabilistic beliefs over a set of of uncertain events, formulate a sensible consensus or aggregate probability distribution over these events. Researchers have proposed many aggregation methods, although on the question of which is best the general consensus is that there is no consensus. We develop a market-based approach to this problem, where agents bet on uncertain events by buying or selling securities contingent on their outcomes. Each agent acts in the market so as to maximize expected utility at given securities prices, limited in its activity only by its own risk aversion. The equilibrium prices of goods in this market represent aggregate beliefs. For agents with constant risk aversion, we demonstrate that the aggregate probability exhibits several desirable properties, and is related to independently motivated techniques. We argue that the market-based approach provides a plausible mechanism for belief aggregation in multiagent systems, as it directly addresses self-motivated agent incentives for participation and for truthfulness, and can provide a decision-theoretic foundation for the "expert weights" often employed in centralized pooling techniques.

[1]  Hal R. Varian,et al.  Differences of Opinion in Financial Markets , 1989 .

[2]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Toward a Market Model for Bayesian Inference , 1996, UAI.

[3]  J. Davenport Editor , 1960 .

[4]  Torsten Norvig Consensus of Subjective Probabilities: A Convergence Theorem , 1967 .

[5]  Keung-Chi Ng,et al.  Consensus diagnosis: a simulation study , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[6]  Robin Hanson Even Adversarial Agents Should Appear to Agree , 1991 .

[7]  The,et al.  DIFFERENCES OF OPINION IN FINANCIAL MARKETS , 2022 .

[8]  Christian Genest,et al.  Combining Probability Distributions: A Critique and an Annotated Bibliography , 1986 .

[9]  R. Hanson Could gambling save science? Encouraging an honest consensus , 1995 .

[10]  E. Eisenberg,et al.  CONSENSUS OF SUBJECTIVE PROBABILITIES: THE PARI-MUTUEL METHOD, , 1959 .

[11]  James V. Zidek,et al.  Multi-Bayesian Statistical Decision Theory , 1981 .

[12]  A. Rosenfeld,et al.  IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SYSTEMS , MAN , AND CYBERNETICS , 2022 .

[13]  J. Pratt RISK AVERSION IN THE SMALL AND IN THE LARGE11This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant NSF-G24035). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .

[14]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[15]  Richard J. Zeckhauser,et al.  The Impossibility of Bayesian Group Decision Making with Separate Aggregation of Beliefs and Values , 1979 .

[16]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives—Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1977 .

[17]  Norman C. Dalkey,et al.  Toward a theory of group estimation , 1975 .

[18]  Donald G. Saari,et al.  A chaotic Exploration of Aggregation Paradoxes , 1995, SIAM Rev..

[19]  J. Pratt RISK AVERSION IN THE SMALL AND IN THE LARGE11This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant NSF-G24035). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .

[20]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[21]  Jon Atli Benediktsson,et al.  Consensus theoretic classification methods , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[22]  K. McCardle,et al.  Arbitrage, rationality, and equilibrium , 1991 .