Eliciting Information From Multiple Experts
A decision maker has to elicit information from informed experts regarding the desirability of a certain action from experts who share similar preferences which differ significantly from those of the decision maker. The question is how much information the decision maker can elicit, despite the difference in interests. The focus here is on ways in which the decision maker can take advantage of the multiplicity of experts. if the decision maker cannot commit to a mechanism and there is no communication among the experts, then no useful information is elicited from the experts in the equilibrium. If the experts can be partitioned into groups such that the members of each group can communicate with each other before they report their information to the decision maker, then more information can be elicited. Obviously, if all experts are allowed to communicate, they can be induced to reveal the relevant information, at least, when their aggregate information makes it desirable for them to undertake the project. The more interesting observation is that, if communication among the experts can be restricted to certain subsets, then even more information can be elicited. Finally, if the decision maker can commit to a mechanism, the information elicited in some cases is sufficient to implement the decision maker's best outcome in all but one state. All these observation make straightforward use of the idea that experts choose their report with the understanding that it matters only when they are pivotal.
|Date of creation:||Sep 1999|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science, Northwestern University, 580 Jacobs Center, 2001 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-2014|
Web page: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/math/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Email: |
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Marco Battaglini, 2000.
"Multiple Referrals and Multidimensional Cheap Talk,"
Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers
1557, Econometric Society.
- Marco Battaglini, 2002. "Multiple Referrals and Multidimensional Cheap Talk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 1379-1401, July.
- Marco Battaglini, 1999. "Multiple Referrals and Multidimensional Cheap Talk," Discussion Papers 1295, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Forges, Francoise, 1990.
Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1341-64, November.
- Forges, F., 1987. "Universal mechanisms," CORE Discussion Papers 1987004, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- FORGES, Françoise, . "Universal mechanisms," CORE Discussion Papers RP 914, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Vijay Krishna & John Morgan, 1999.
"A Model of Expertise,"
Game Theory and Information
- Krishna, V. & Morgan, J., 1999. "A Model of Expertise," Papers 206, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
- Vijay Krishna & John Morgan, 1999. "A Model of Expertise," Working Papers 154, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Discussion Papers in Economics.
- Austen-Smith David, 1993. "Interested Experts and Policy Advice: Multiple Referrals under Open Rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 3-43, January.
- Helmut Bester & Roland Strausz, . "Imperfect Commitment and the Revelation Principle," Papers 004, Departmental Working Papers.
- Bester, Helmut & Strausz, Roland, 2001. "Contracting with Imperfect Commitment and the Revelation Principle: The Single Agent Case," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 1077-98, July.
- V. Crawford & J. Sobel, 2010.
"Strategic Information Transmission,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
544, David K. Levine.
- Timothy Feddersen & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 1996. "Convicting the Innocent: The Inferiority of Unanimous Jury Verdicts," Discussion Papers 1170, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nwu:cmsems:1277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Fran Walker)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.