This paper investigates the incentive mechanism design from a novel and practically important perspective in which mobile users as contributors do not join simultaneously and a requester desires large efforts from early contributors. A two-stage Tullock contest framework is constructed:at the second stage the potential contributors compete for splittable reward by exerting efforts, and at the first stage the requester can orchestrate the incentive mechanism to maximize his crowdsensing efficiency given the rewarding budget. A general reward discrimination mechanism is developed for timeliness sensitive crowdsensing where an earlier contributor usually has a larger maximum achievable reward and thus allocates more efforts. Owning to the lack of joining time information, two practical implementations, namely earliest-n and termination time, are announced to the contributors. For each of them, we formulate a Stackelberg Bayesian game in which the joining time of a contributor is his type and not available to his opponents. The uniqueness of Bayesian Nash equilibrium (BNE) is proved in each strategy. To maximize the requester's efficiency, we compute the optimal number of rewarded contributors in the earliest-n scheme and the optimal deadline in the termination time scheme. Our contest framework is applicable not only to the closed crowdsensing with fixed number of contributors, but also to the open crowdsensing that the arrival of contributors is governed by a stochastic process. Extensive simulations manifest that with appropriate reward discriminations, the requester is able to achieve a much higher efficiency with the optimal selection of the number of rewarded contributiors and the termination time.
The studies most relevant to ours are @cite_1 @cite_16 that utilized Tullock-like contest models. In the pioneering work @cite_1 , the crowdsensing was modeled by a complete information Tullock game. @cite_16 investigated the same contest model with incomplete information that admited a BNE, and presented an optimal prize function to maximize the total efforts. Both studies do not consider the timeliness of contributions. We rigorously show how an appropriate form of contest model can be chosen, and propose two novel Stackelberg Bayesian contest mechanisms to incentivize early joining contestants to contribute more efforts.
@cite_16 @cite_1
1536369969 2124576904 2514333820 2043634452
Incentive mechanisms for crowdsourcing have been extensively studied under the framework of all-pay auctions. Along a distinct line, this paper proposes to use Tullock contests as an alternative tool to design incentive mechanisms for crowdsourcing. We are inspired by the conduciveness of Tullock contests to attracting user entry (yet not necessarily a higher revenue) in other domains. In this paper, we explore a new dimension in optimal Tullock contest design, by superseding the contest prize — which is fixed in conventional Tullock contests — with a prize function that is dependent on the (unknown) winner's contribution, in order to maximize the crowdsourcer's utility. We show that this approach leads to attractive practical advantages: (a) it is well-suited for rapid prototyping in fully distributed web agents and smartphone apps; (b) it overcomes the disincentive to participate caused by players' antagonism to an increasing number of rivals. Furthermore, we optimize conventional, fixed-prize Tullock contests to construct the most superior benchmark to compare against our mechanism. Through extensive evaluations, we show that our mechanism significantly outperforms the optimal benchmark, by over three folds on the crowdsourcer's utility cum profit and up to nine folds on the players' social welfare. In this paper we present and analyze a model in which users select among, and subsequently compete in, a collection of contests offering various rewards. The objective is to capture the essential features of a crowdsourcing system, an environment in which diverse tasks are presented to a large community. We aim to demonstrate the precise relationship between incentives and participation in such systems. We model contests as all-pay auctions with incomplete information; as a consequence of revenue equivalence, our model may also be interpreted more broadly as one in which users select among auctions of heterogeneous goods. We present two regimes in which we find an explicit correspondence in equilibrium between the offered rewards and the users' participation levels. The regimes respectively model situations in which different contests require similar or unrelated skills. Principally, we find that rewards yield logarithmically diminishing returns with respect to participation levels. We compare these results to empirical data from the crowdsourcing site Taskcn.com; we find that as we condition the data on more experienced users, the model more closely conforms to the empirical data. Abstract Several competing human behavior models have been proposed to model boundedly rational adversaries in repeated Stackelberg Security Games (SSG). However, these existing models fail to address three main issues which are detrimental to defender performance. First, while they attempt to learn adversary behavior models from adversaries' past actions (“attacks on targets”), they fail to take into account adversaries' future adaptation based on successes or failures of these past actions. Second, existing algorithms fail to learn a reliable model of the adversary unless there exists sufficient data collected by exposing enough of the attack surface – a situation that often arises in initial rounds of the repeated SSG. Third, current leading models have failed to include probability weighting functions, even though it is well known that human beings' weighting of probability is typically nonlinear. To address these limitations of existing models, this article provides three main contributions. Our first contribution is a new human behavior model, SHARP, which mitigates these three limitations as follows: (i) SHARP reasons based on success or failure of the adversary's past actions on exposed portions of the attack surface to model adversary adaptivity; (ii) SHARP reasons about similarity between exposed and unexposed areas of the attack surface, and also incorporates a discounting parameter to mitigate adversary's lack of exposure to enough of the attack surface; and (iii) SHARP integrates a non-linear probability weighting function to capture the adversary's true weighting of probability. Our second contribution is a first “repeated measures study” – at least in the context of SSGs – of competing human behavior models. This study, where each experiment lasted a period of multiple weeks with individual sets of human subjects on the Amazon Mechanical Turk platform, illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of different models and shows the advantages of SHARP. Our third major contribution is to demonstrate SHARP's superiority by conducting real-world human subjects experiments at the Bukit Barisan Seletan National Park in Indonesia against wildlife security experts. We study a contest with multiple (not necessarily equal) prizes. Contestants have private information about an ability parameter that affects their costs of bidding. The contestant with the highest bid wins the first prize, the contestant with the second-highest bid wins the second prize, and so on until all the prizes are allocated. All contestants incur their respective costs of bidding. The contest's designer maximizes the expected sum of bids. Our main results are: 1) We display bidding equlibria for any number of contestants having linear, convex or concave cost functions, and for any distribution of abilities. 2) If the cost functions are linear or concave, then, no matter what the distribution of abilities is, it is optimal for the designer to allocate the entire prize sum to a single ''first'' prize. 3) We give a necessary and sufficient conditions ensuring that several prizes are optimal if contestants have a convex cost function.