IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2601.14047.html

Collective intelligence in science: direct elicitation of diverse information from experts with unknown information structure

Author

Listed:
  • Alexey V. Osipov
  • Nikolay N. Osipov

Abstract

Suppose we need a deep collective analysis of an open scientific problem: there is a complex scientific hypothesis and a large online group of mutually unrelated experts with relevant private information of a diverse and unpredictable nature. This information may be results of experts' individual experiments, original reasoning of some of them, results of AI systems they use, etc. We propose a simple mechanism based on a self-resolving play-money prediction market entangled with a chat. We show that such a system can easily be brought to an equilibrium where participants directly share their private information on the hypothesis through the chat and trade as if the market were resolved in accordance with the truth of the hypothesis. This approach will lead to efficient aggregation of relevant information in a completely interpretable form even if the ground truth cannot be established and experts initially know nothing about each other and cannot perform complex Bayesian calculations. Finally, by rewarding the experts with some real assets proportionally to the play money they end up with, we can get an innovative way to fund large-scale collaborative studies of any type.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexey V. Osipov & Nikolay N. Osipov, 2026. "Collective intelligence in science: direct elicitation of diverse information from experts with unknown information structure," Papers 2601.14047, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2601.14047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.14047
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johan Almenberg & Ken Kittlitz & Thomas Pfeiffer, 2009. "An Experiment on Prediction Markets in Science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-7, December.
    2. Robin Hanson, 2007. "Logarithmic Market Scoring Rules for Modular Combinatorial Information Aggregation," Journal of Prediction Markets, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 1(1), pages 3-15, February.
    3. Nolan Miller & Paul Resnick & Richard Zeckhauser, 2005. "Eliciting Informative Feedback: The Peer-Prediction Method," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(9), pages 1359-1373, September.
    4. Lian Jian & Rahul Sami, 2012. "Aggregation and Manipulation in Prediction Markets: Effects of Trading Mechanism and Information Distribution," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 123-140, January.
    5. Nielsen, Lars Tyge, et al, 1990. "Common Knowledge of an Aggregate of Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(5), pages 1235-1239, September.
    6. Siddarth Srinivasan & Ezra Karger & Michiel Bakker & Yiling Chen, 2025. "Tell Me Why: Incentivizing Explanations," Papers 2502.13410, arXiv.org.
    7. McKelvey, Richard D & Page, Talbot, 1990. "Public and Private Information: An Experimental Study of Information Pooling," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1321-1339, November.
    8. MERTENS, Jean-François & ZAMIR, Shmuel, 1985. "Formulation of Bayesian analysis for games with incomplete information," LIDAM Reprints CORE 608, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    9. Adam Brandenburger & Eddie Dekel, 2014. "Hierarchies of Beliefs and Common Knowledge," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 2, pages 31-41, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    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. Spyros Galanis & Christos A Ioannou & Stelios Kotronis, 2024. "Information Aggregation Under Ambiguity: Theory and Experimental Evidence," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(6), pages 3423-3467.
    2. Galanis Spyros & Kotronis Stelios, 2021. "Updating Awareness and Information Aggregation," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 21(2), pages 613-635, June.
    3. Giacomo Bonanno & Klaus Nehring, "undated". "Agreeing To Disagree: A Survey," Department of Economics 97-18, California Davis - Department of Economics.
    4. Fukuda, Satoshi, 2024. "The existence of universal qualitative belief spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    5. , G. & , & ,, 2008. "Non-Bayesian updating: A theoretical framework," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 3(2), June.
    6. Karimi, Majid & Zaerpour, Nima, 2022. "Put your money where your forecast is: Supply chain collaborative forecasting with cost-function-based prediction markets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 1035-1049.
    7. Willemien Kets, 2014. "Finite Depth of Reasoning and Equilibrium Play in Games with Incomplete Information," Discussion Papers 1569, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    8. Heifetz, Aviad & Samet, Dov, 1998. "Topology-Free Typology of Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 324-341, October.
    9. , & , & ,, 2007. "Interim correlated rationalizability," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 2(1), pages 15-40, March.
    10. Grabiszewski, Konrad, 2010. "Kernel-based type spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2483-2495, November.
    11. Ziv Hellman & Miklós Pintér, 2022. "Charges and bets: a general characterisation of common priors," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 51(3), pages 567-587, November.
    12. Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2021. "Iterated dominance revisited," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(2), pages 377-421, September.
    13. Pintér, Miklós & Udvari, Zsolt, 2011. "Generalized type spaces," MPRA Paper 34107, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. , & , & , & ,, 2010. "Uniform topologies on types," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5(3), September.
    15. Milchtaich, Igal, 2004. "Random-player games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 353-388, May.
    16. Kim-Sau Chung & J.C. Ely, 2007. "Foundations of Dominant-Strategy Mechanisms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(2), pages 447-476.
    17. Tsakas, E., 2011. "Hierarchies of conditional beliefs derived from commonly known priors," Research Memorandum 021, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    18. Patrick Buckley & Fergal O’Brien, 0. "The effect of malicious manipulations on prediction market accuracy," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-13.
    19. Tsakas, Elias, 2014. "Epistemic equivalence of extended belief hierarchies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 126-144.
    20. Áron Tóbiás, 2023. "Cognitive limits and preferences for information," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 46(1), pages 221-253, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2601.14047. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.