Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userCrowdsourcing with Tullock contests: A new perspective
184
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Tony T. Luo
Publication date
2017
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Incentive mechanisms for crowdsourcing have been extensively studied under the framework of all-pay auctions. Along a distinct line, this paper proposes to use Tullock contests as an alternative tool to design incentive mechanisms for crowdsourcing. We are inspired by the conduciveness of Tullock contests to attracting user entry (yet not necessarily a higher revenue) in other domains. In this paper, we explore a new dimension in optimal Tullock contest design, by superseding the contest prize---which is fixed in conventional Tullock contests---with a prize function that is dependent on the (unknown) winners contribution, in order to maximize the crowdsourcers utility. We show that this approach leads to attractive practical advantages: (a) it is well-suited for rapid prototyping in fully distributed web agents and smartphone apps; (b) it overcomes the disincentive to participate caused by players antagonism to an increasing number of rivals. Furthermore, we optimize conventional, fixed-prize Tullock contests to construct the most superior benchmark to compare against our mechanism. Through extensive evaluations, we show that our mechanism significantly outperforms the optimal benchmark, by over three folds on the crowdsourcers utility cum profit and up to nine folds on the players social welfare.
rate research
Read More
In a crowdsourcing market, a requester is looking to form a team of workers to perform a complex task that requires a variety of skills. Candidate workers advertise their certified skills and bid prices for their participation. We design four incentive mechanisms for selecting workers to form a valid team (that can complete the task) and determining each individual workers payment. We examine profitability, individual rationality, computational efficiency, and truthfulness for each of the four mechanisms. Our analysis shows that TruTeam, one of the four mechanisms, is superior to the others, particularly due to its computational efficiency and truthfulness. Our extensive simulations confirm the analysis and demonstrate that TruTeam is an efficient and truthful pricing mechanism for team formation in crowdsourcing markets.
Incentives are key to the success of crowdsourcing which heavily depends on the level of user participation. This paper designs an incentive mechanism to motivate a heterogeneous crowd of users to actively participate in crowdsourcing campaigns. We cast the problem in a new, asymmetric all-pay contest model with incomplete information, where an arbitrary n of users exert irrevocable effort to compete for a prize tuple. The prize tuple is an array of prize functions as opposed to a single constant prize typically used by conventional contests. We design an optimal contest that (a) induces the maximum profit---total user effort minus the prize payout---for the crowdsourcer, and (b) ensures users to strictly have the incentive to participate. In stark contrast to intuition and prior related work, our mechanism induces an equilibrium in which heterogeneous users behave independently of one another as if they were in a homogeneous setting. This newly discovered property, which we coin as strategy autonomy (SA), is of practical significance: it (a) reduces computational and storage complexity by n-fold for each user, (b) increases the crowdsourcers revenue by counteracting an effort reservation effect existing in asymmetric contests, and (c) neutralizes the (almost universal) law of diminishing marginal returns (DMR). Through an extensive numerical case study, we demonstrate and scrutinize the superior profitability of our mechanism, as well as draw insights into the SA property.
We study competition among contests in a general model that allows for an arbitrary and heterogeneous space of contest design, where the goal of the contest designers is to maximize the contestants sum of efforts. Our main result shows that optimal contests in the monopolistic setting (i.e., those that maximize the sum of efforts in a model with a single contest) form an equilibrium in the model with competition among contests. Under a very natural assumption these contests are in fact dominant, and the equilibria that they form are unique. Moreover, equilibria with the optimal contests are Pareto-optimal even in cases where other equilibria emerge. In many natural cases, they also maximize the social welfare.
Incentives are more likely to elicit desired outcomes when they are designed based on accurate models of agents strategic behavior. A growing literature, however, suggests that people do not quite behave like standard economic agents in a variety of environments, both online and offline. What consequences might such differences have for the optimal design of mechanisms in these environments? In this paper, we explore this question in the context of optimal contest design for simple agents---agents who strategically reason about whether or not to participate in a system, but not about the input they provide to it. Specifically, consider a contest where $n$ potential contestants with types $(q_i,c_i)$ each choose between participating and producing a submission of quality $q_i$ at cost $c_i$, versus not participating at all, to maximize their utilities. How should a principal distribute a total prize $V$ amongst the $n$ ranks to maximize some increasing function of the qualities of elicited submissions in a contest with such simple agents? We first solve the optimal contest design problem for settings with homogenous participation costs $c_i = c$. Here, the optimal contest is always a simple contest, awarding equal prizes to the top $j^*$ contestants for a suitable choice of $j^*$. (In comparable models with strategic effort choices, the optimal contest is either a winner-take-all contest or awards possibly unequal prizes, depending on the curvature of agents effort cost functions.) We next address the general case with heterogeneous costs where agents types are inherently two-dimensional, significantly complicating equilibrium analysis. Our main result here is that the winner-take-all contest is a 3-approximation of the optimal contest when the principals objective is to maximize the quality of the best elicited contribution.
This paper considers the problem of how to allocate power among competing users sharing a frequency-selective interference channel. We model the interaction between selfish users as a non-cooperative game. As opposed to the existing iterative water-filling algorithm that studies the myopic users, this paper studies how a foresighted user, who knows the channel state information and response strategies of its competing users, should optimize its transmission strategy. To characterize this multi-user interaction, the Stackelberg equilibrium is introduced, and the existence of this equilibrium for the investigated non-cooperative game is shown. We analyze this interaction in more detail using a simple two-user example, where the foresighted user determines its transmission strategy by solving as a bi-level program which allows him to account for the myopic users response. It is analytically shown that a foresighted user can improve its performance, if it has the necessary information about its competitors. Since the optimal solution of Stackelberg equilibrium is computationally prohibitive, we propose a practical low-complexity approach based on Lagrangian duality theory. Numerical simulations verify the performance improvements. Possible ways to acquire the required information and to extend the formulation to more than two users are also discussed.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
