IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v69y2023i3p1354-1374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incentive-Compatible Forecasting Competitions

Author

Listed:
  • Jens Witkowski

    (Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, Frankfurt 60322, Germany)

  • Rupert Freeman

    (Darden School of Business, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903)

  • Jennifer Wortman Vaughan

    (Microsoft Research, New York, New York 10012)

  • David M. Pennock

    (Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08854)

  • Andreas Krause

    (Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich 8092, Switzerland)

Abstract

We initiate the study of incentive-compatible forecasting competitions in which multiple forecasters make predictions about one or more events and compete for a single prize. We have two objectives: (1) to incentivize forecasters to report truthfully and (2) to award the prize to the most accurate forecaster. Proper scoring rules incentivize truthful reporting if all forecasters are paid according to their scores. However, incentives become distorted if only the best-scoring forecaster wins a prize, since forecasters can often increase their probability of having the highest score by reporting more extreme beliefs. In this paper, we introduce two novel forecasting competition mechanisms. Our first mechanism is incentive compatible and guaranteed to select the most accurate forecaster with probability higher than any other forecaster. Moreover, we show that in the standard single-event, two-forecaster setting and under mild technical conditions, no other incentive-compatible mechanism selects the most accurate forecaster with higher probability. Our second mechanism is incentive compatible when forecasters’ beliefs are such that information about one event does not lead to belief updates on other events, and it selects the best forecaster with probability approaching one as the number of events grows. Our notion of incentive compatibility is more general than previous definitions of dominant strategy incentive compatibility in that it allows for reports to be correlated with the event outcomes. Moreover, our mechanisms are easy to implement and can be generalized to the related problems of outputting a ranking over forecasters and hiring a forecaster with high accuracy on future events.

Suggested Citation

  • Jens Witkowski & Rupert Freeman & Jennifer Wortman Vaughan & David M. Pennock & Andreas Krause, 2023. "Incentive-Compatible Forecasting Competitions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 1354-1374, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:3:p:1354-1374
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.4410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4410
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4410?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Konrad, Kai A., 2009. "Strategy and Dynamics in Contests," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199549603, Decembrie.
    2. Kenneth C. Lichtendahl, Jr. & Robert L. Winkler, 2007. "Probability Elicitation, Scoring Rules, and Competition Among Forecasters," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1745-1755, November.
    3. Edi Karni, 2009. "A Mechanism for Eliciting Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(2), pages 603-606, March.
    4. Tanjim Hossain & Ryo Okui, 2013. "The Binarized Scoring Rule," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 984-1001.
    5. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr. & Victor Richmond R. Jose & Robert L. Winkler, 2017. "Quantile Evaluation, Sensitivity to Bracketing, and Sharing Business Payoffs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 712-728, June.
    6. Satopää, Ville A. & Baron, Jonathan & Foster, Dean P. & Mellers, Barbara A. & Tetlock, Philip E. & Ungar, Lyle H., 2014. "Combining multiple probability predictions using a simple logit model," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 344-356.
    7. Victor Jose, 2009. "A Characterization for the Spherical Scoring Rule," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 66(3), pages 263-281, March.
    8. Bo Cowgill & Eric Zitzewitz, 2015. "Corporate Prediction Markets: Evidence from Google, Ford, and Firm X," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(4), pages 1309-1341.
    9. D. Marc Kilgour & Yigal Gerchak, 2004. "Elicitation of Probabilities Using Competitive Scoring Rules," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 108-113, June.
    10. Pavel Atanasov & Phillip Rescober & Eric Stone & Samuel A. Swift & Emile Servan-Schreiber & Philip Tetlock & Lyle Ungar & Barbara Mellers, 2017. "Distilling the Wisdom of Crowds: Prediction Markets vs. Prediction Polls," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 691-706, March.
    11. Gneiting, Tilmann & Raftery, Adrian E., 2007. "Strictly Proper Scoring Rules, Prediction, and Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 102, pages 359-378, March.
    12. Asa B. Palley & Jack B. Soll, 2019. "Extracting the Wisdom of Crowds When Information Is Shared," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2291-2309, May.
    13. Kenneth C. Lichtendahl & Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Phillip E. Pfeifer, 2013. "The Wisdom of Competitive Crowds," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(6), pages 1383-1398, December.
    14. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Satopää, Ville A., 2021. "Improving the wisdom of crowds with analysis of variance of predictions of related outcomes," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1728-1747.
    2. Cem Peker, 2023. "Extracting the collective wisdom in probabilistic judgments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 94(3), pages 467-501, April.
    3. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    4. Tino Werner, 2022. "Elicitability of Instance and Object Ranking," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 123-140, June.
    5. Niklas Valentin Lehmann, 2023. "Forecasting skill of a crowd-prediction platform: A comparison of exchange rate forecasts," Papers 2312.09081, arXiv.org.
    6. Eyting, Markus & Schmidt, Patrick, 2021. "Belief elicitation with multiple point predictions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Rasocha, Vlastimil, 2021. "Experimental methods: Eliciting beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 234-256.
    8. de Haan, Thomas, 2020. "Eliciting belief distributions using a random two-level partitioning of the state space," Working Papers in Economics 1/20, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    9. Wang, Xiaoqian & Hyndman, Rob J. & Li, Feng & Kang, Yanfei, 2023. "Forecast combinations: An over 50-year review," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 1518-1547.
    10. Majid Karimi & Stanko Dimitrov, 2018. "On the Road to Making Science of “Art”: Risk Bias in Market Scoring Rules," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 72-89, June.
    11. Guillaume Hollard & Sébastien Massoni & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2016. "In search of good probability assessors: an experimental comparison of elicitation rules for confidence judgments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(3), pages 363-387, March.
    12. Ho Cheung Brian Lee & Jan Stallaert & Ming Fan, 2020. "Anomalies in Probability Estimates for Event Forecasting on Prediction Markets," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(9), pages 2077-2095, September.
    13. Karl Schlag & James Tremewan & Joël Weele, 2015. "A penny for your thoughts: a survey of methods for eliciting beliefs," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 457-490, September.
    14. Ville A. Satopää & Marat Salikhov & Philip E. Tetlock & Barbara Mellers, 2021. "Bias, Information, Noise: The BIN Model of Forecasting," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7599-7618, December.
    15. Yanwei Jia & Jussi Keppo & Ville Satopää, 2023. "Herding in Probabilistic Forecasts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 2713-2732, May.
    16. Choi, Jin Hyuk & Han, Kookyoung, 2020. "Optimal contract for outsourcing information acquisition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    17. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Han Bleichrodt & Emmanuel Kemel & Olivier l’Haridon, 2021. "Measuring Beliefs Under Ambiguity," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(2), pages 599-612, March.
    18. Li Hao & Daniel Houser, 2012. "Belief elicitation in the presence of naïve respondents: An experimental study," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 161-180, April.
    19. Harrison, Glenn W. & Martínez-Correa, Jimmy & Swarthout, J. Todd, 2014. "Eliciting subjective probabilities with binary lotteries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 128-140.
    20. Markus Eyting & Patrick Schmidt, 2019. "Belief Elicitation with Multiple Point Predictions," Working Papers 1818, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, revised 16 Nov 2020.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:69:y:2023:i:3:p:1354-1374. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.