Peer grading systems work well only if users have incentives to grade truthfully. An example of non-truthful grading, that we observed in classrooms, consists in students assigning the maximum grade to all submissions. With a naive grading scheme, such as averaging the assigned grades, all students would receive the maximum grade. In this paper, we develop three grading schemes that provide incentives for truthful peer grading. In the first scheme, the instructor grades a fraction p of the submissions, and penalizes students whose grade deviates from the instructor grade. We provide lower bounds on p to ensure truthfulness, and conclude that these schemes work only for moderate class sizes, up to a few hundred students. To overcome this limitation, we propose a hierarchical extension of this supervised scheme, and we show that it can handle classes of any size with bounded (and little) instructor work, and is therefore applicable to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Finally, we propose unsupervised incentive schemes, in which the student incentive is based on statistical properties of the grade distribution, without any grading required by the instructor. We show that the proposed unsupervised schemes provide incentives to truthful grading, at the price of being possibly unfair to individual students.
Providing incentives to human agents to return thuthful responses is a central challenge of crowdsourcing algorithms and applications @cite_9 .
@cite_9
2109062107 1983916796 1536369969 1601808502
A challenge with the programmatic access of human talent via crowdsourcing platforms is the specification of incentives and the checking of the quality of contributions. Methodologies for checking quality include providing a payment if the work is approved by the task owner and hiring additional workers to evaluate contributors' work. Both of these approaches place a burden on people and on the organizations commissioning tasks, and may be susceptible to manipulation by workers and task owners. Moreover, neither a task owner nor the task market may know the task well enough to be able to evaluate worker reports. Methodologies for incentivizing workers without external quality checking include rewards based on agreement with a peer worker or with the final output of the system. These approaches are vulnerable to strategic manipulations by workers. Recent experiments on Mechanical Turk have demonstrated the negative influence of manipulations by workers and task owners on crowdsourcing systems [3]. We address this central challenge by introducing incentive mechanisms that promote truthful reporting in crowdsourcing and discourage manipulation by workers and task owners without introducing additional overhead. We initiate the study of incentives in a general machine learning framework. We focus on a game-theoretic regression learning setting where private information is elicited from multiple agents with different, possibly conflicting, views on how to label the points of an input space. This conflict potentially gives rise to untruthfulness on the part of the agents. In the restricted but important case when every agent cares about a single point, and under mild assumptions, we show that agents are motivated to tell the truth. In a more general setting, we study the power and limitations of mechanisms without payments. We finally establish that, in the general setting, the VCG mechanism goes a long way in guaranteeing truthfulness and economic efficiency. 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. Crowdsourcing systems allocate tasks to a group of workers over the Internet, which have become an effective paradigm for human-powered problem solving such as image classification, optical character recognition and proofreading. In this paper, we focus on incentivizing crowd workers to label a set of binary tasks under strict budget constraint. We properly profile the tasks' difficulty levels and workers' quality in crowdsourcing systems, where the collected labels are aggregated with sequential Bayesian approach. To stimulate workers to undertake crowd labeling tasks, the interaction between workers and the platform is modeled as a reverse auction. We reveal that the platform utility maximization could be intractable, for which an incentive mechanism that determines the winning bid and payments with polynomial-time computation complexity is developed. Moreover, we theoretically prove that our mechanism is truthful, individually rational and budget feasible. Through extensive simulations, we demonstrate that our mechanism utilizes budget efficiently to achieve high platform utility with polynomial computation complexity.