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.
The peer-prediction method @cite_21 uses proper scoring rules to reward experts depending on how good their input for predicting other experts' reports. Similarly, the model described in @cite_12 evaluates experts depending on how good their reports are in predicting the consensus of other workers.
@cite_21 @cite_12
1904238289 2506952740 2949539581 2007810306
When eliciting opinions from a group of experts, traditional devices used to promote honest reporting assume that there is an observable future outcome. In practice, however, this assumption is not always reasonable. In this paper, we propose a scoring method built on strictly proper scoring rules to induce honest reporting without assuming observable outcomes. Our method provides scores based on pairwise comparisons between the reports made by each pair of experts in the group. For ease of exposition, we introduce our scoring method by illustrating its application to the peer-review process. In order to do so, we start by modeling the peer-review process using a Bayesian model where the uncertainty regarding the quality of the manuscript is taken into account. Thereafter, we introduce our scoring method to evaluate the reported reviews. Under the assumptions that reviewers are Bayesian decision-makers and that they cannot influence the reviews of other reviewers, we show that risk-neutral reviewers strictly maximize their expected scores by honestly disclosing their reviews. We also show how the group's scores can be used to find a consensual review. Experimental results show that encouraging honest reporting through the proposed scoring method creates more accurate reviews than the traditional peer-review process. Peer assessment is the most common approach to evaluating scientific work, and it is also gaining popularity for scaling evaluation of student work in large and distributed classes. The key idea is that each peer reviewer or grader rates a relatively small subset of the items, and that some method of manual, semi-automatic, or fully-automatic aggregation of all assessments defines the eventual rating of all items – the grade in peer grading, or whether to accept or reject a scientific manuscript. In this paper, we explore in how far a Bayesian Ordinal Peer Assessment (BOPA) method can provide additional decision support when making acceptance rejection decisions for a scientific conference. Using data from the 2015 ACM Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD), where this system was deployed, we discuss the potential merit of the BOPA approach compared to conventional decision support offered by the Microsoft Conference Management System (CMT). Peer-prediction is a (meta-)mechanism which, given any proper scoring rule, produces a mechanism to elicit privately-held, non-verifiable information from self-interested agents. Formally, truth-telling is a strict Nash equilibrium of the mechanism. Unfortunately, there may be other equilibria as well (including uninformative equilibria where all players simply report the same fixed signal, regardless of their true signal) and, typically, the truth-telling equilibrium does not have the highest expected payoff. The main result of this paper is to show that, in the symmetric binary setting, by tweaking peer-prediction, in part by carefully selecting the proper scoring rule it is based on, we can make the truth-telling equilibrium focal---that is, truth-telling has higher expected payoff than any other equilibrium. Along the way, we prove the following: in the setting where agents receive binary signals we 1) classify all equilibria of the peer-prediction mechanism; 2) introduce a new technical tool for understanding scoring rules, which allows us to make truth-telling pay better than any other informative equilibrium; 3) leverage this tool to provide an optimal version of the previous result; that is, we optimize the gap between the expected payoff of truth-telling and other informative equilibria; and 4) show that with a slight modification to the peer prediction framework, we can, in general, make the truth-telling equilibrium focal---that is, truth-telling pays more than any other equilibrium (including the uninformative equilibria). In an expert search task, the users’ need is to identify people who have relevant expertise to a topic of interest. An expert search system predicts and ranks the expertise of a set of candidate persons with respect to the users’ query. In this paper, we propose a novel approach for predicting and ranking candidate expertise with respect to a query, called the Voting Model for Expert Search. In the Voting Model, we see the problem of ranking experts as a voting problem. We model the voting problem using 12 various voting techniques, which are inspired from the data fusion field. We investigate the effectiveness of the Voting Model and the associated voting techniques across a range of document weighting models, in the context of the TREC 2005 and TREC 2006 Enterprise tracks. The evaluation results show that the voting paradigm is very effective, without using any query or collection-specific heuristics. Moreover, we show that improving the quality of the underlying document representation can significantly improve the retrieval performance of the voting techniques on an expert search task. In particular, we demonstrate that applying field-based weighting models improves the ranking of candidates. Finally, we demonstrate that the relative performance of the voting techniques for the proposed approach is stable on a given task regardless of the used weighting models, suggesting that some of the proposed voting techniques will always perform better than other voting techniques.