Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userOn Manipulation in Prediction Markets When Participants Influence Outcomes Directly
176
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Walter S. Lasecki
Publication date
2014
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Prediction markets are often used as mechanisms to aggregate information about a future event, for example, whether a candidate will win an election. The event is typically assumed to be exogenous. In reality, participants may influence the outcome, and therefore (1) running the prediction market could change the incentives of participants in the process that creates the outcome (for example, agents may want to change their vote in an election), and (2) simple results such as the myopic incentive compatibility of proper scoring rules no longer hold in the prediction market itself. We introduce a model of games of this kind, where agents first trade in a prediction market and then take an action that influences the market outcome. Our two-stage two-player model, despite its simplicity, captures two aspects of real-world prediction markets: (1) agents may directly influence the outcome, (2) some of the agents instrumental in deciding the outcome may not take part in the prediction market. We show that this game has two different types of perfect Bayesian equilibria, which we term LPP and HPP, depending on the values of the belief parameters: in the LPP domain, equilibrium prices reveal expected market outcomes conditional on the participants private information, whereas HPP equilibria are collusive -- participants effectively coordinate in an uninformative and untruthful way.
rate research
Read More
Prediction markets are powerful tools to elicit and aggregate beliefs from strategic agents. However, in current prediction markets, agents may exhaust the social welfare by competing to be the first to update the market. We initiate the study of the trade-off between how quickly information is aggregated by the market, and how much this information costs. We design markets to aggregate timely information from strategic agents to maximize social welfare. To this end, the market must incentivize agents to invest the correct amount of effort to acquire information: quickly enough to be useful, but not faster (and more expensively) than necessary. The market also must ensure that agents report their information truthfully and on time. We consider two settings: in the first, information is only valuable before a deadline; in the second, the value of information decreases as time passes. We use both theorems and simulations to demonstrate the mechanisms.
We design a prediction market to recover a complete and fully general probability distribution over a random variable. Traders buy and sell interval securities that pay $1 if the outcome falls into an interval and $0 otherwise. Our market takes the form of a central automated market maker and allows traders to express interval endpoints of arbitrary precision. We present two designs in both of which market operations take time logarithmic in the number of intervals (that traders distinguish), providing the first computationally efficient market for a continuous variable. Our first design replicates the popular logarithmic market scoring rule (LMSR), but operates exponentially faster than a standard LMSR by exploiting its modularity properties to construct a balanced binary tree and decompose computations along the tree nodes. The second design consists of two or more parallel LMSR market makers that mediate submarkets of increasingly fine-grained outcome partitions. This design remains computationally efficient for all operations, including arbitrage removal across submarkets. It adds two additional benefits for the market designer: (1) the ability to express utility for information at various resolutions by assigning different liquidity values, and (2) the ability to guarantee a true constant bounded loss by appropriately decreasing the liquidity in each submarket.
We study the computation of equilibria in prediction markets in perhaps the most fundamental special case with two players and three trading opportunities. To do so, we show equivalence of prediction market equilibria with those of a simpler signaling game with commitment introduced by Kong and Schoenebeck (2018). We then extend their results by giving computationally efficient algorithms for additional parameter regimes. Our approach leverages a new connection between prediction markets and Bayesian persuasion, which also reveals interesting conceptual insights.
We analyze the revenue loss due to market shrinkage. Specifically, consider a simple market with one item for sale and $n$ bidders whose values are drawn from some joint distribution. Suppose that the market shrinks as a single bidder retires from the market. Suppose furthermore that the value of this retiring bidder is fixed and always strictly smaller than the values of the other players. We show that even this slight decrease in competition might cause a significant fall of a multiplicative factor of $frac{1}{e+1}approx0.268$ in the revenue that can be obtained by a dominant strategy ex-post individually rational mechanism. In particular, our results imply a solution to an open question that was posed by Dobzinski, Fu, and Kleinberg [STOC11].
Motivated by the emergence of popular service-based two-sided markets where sellers can serve multiple buyers at the same time, we formulate and study the {em two-sided cost sharing} problem. In two-sided cost sharing, sellers incur different costs for serving different subsets of buyers and buyers have different values for being served by different sellers. Both buyers and sellers are self-interested agents whose values and costs are private information. We study the problem from the perspective of an intermediary platform that matches buyers to sellers and assigns prices and wages in an effort to maximize welfare (i.e., buyer values minus seller costs) subject to budget-balance in an incentive compatible manner. In our markets of interest, agents trade the (often same) services multiple times. Moreover, the value and cost for the same service differs based on the context (e.g., location, urgency, weather conditions, etc). In this framework, we design mechanisms that are efficient, ex-ante budget-balanced, ex-ante individually rational, dominant strategy incentive compatible, and ex-ante in the core (a natural generalization of the core that we define here).
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
