Results 1  10
of
68
Eliciting Informative Feedback: The PeerPrediction Method
 Management Science
, 2005
"... informs ® doi 10.1287/mnsc.1050.0379 ..."
A utility framework for boundedloss market makers
 In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence
, 2007
"... We introduce a class of utilitybased market makers that always accept orders at their riskneutral prices. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for such market makers to have bounded loss. We prove that hyperbolic absolute risk aversion utility market makers are equivalent to weighted pseu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 47 (21 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We introduce a class of utilitybased market makers that always accept orders at their riskneutral prices. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for such market makers to have bounded loss. We prove that hyperbolic absolute risk aversion utility market makers are equivalent to weighted pseudospherical scoring rule market makers. In particular, Hanson’s logarithmic scoring rule market maker corresponds to a negative exponential utility market maker in our framework. We describe a third equivalent formulation based on maintaining a cost function that seems most natural for implementation purposes, and we illustrate how to translate among the three equivalent formulations. We examine the tradeoff between the market’s liquidity and the market maker’s worstcase loss. For a fixed bound on worstcase loss, some market makers exhibit greater liquidity near uniform prices and some exhibit greater liquidity near extreme prices, but no market maker can exhibit uniformly greater liquidity in all regimes. For a fixed minimum liquidity level, we give the lower bound of market maker’s worstcase loss under some regularity conditions. 1
Complexity of Combinatorial Market Makers ∗
"... We analyze the computational complexity of market maker pricing algorithms for combinatorial prediction markets. We focus on Hanson’s popular logarithmic market scoring rule market maker (LMSR). Our goal is to implicitly maintain correct LMSR prices across an exponentially large outcome space. We ex ..."
Abstract

Cited by 31 (17 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We analyze the computational complexity of market maker pricing algorithms for combinatorial prediction markets. We focus on Hanson’s popular logarithmic market scoring rule market maker (LMSR). Our goal is to implicitly maintain correct LMSR prices across an exponentially large outcome space. We examine both permutation combinatorics, where outcomes are permutations of objects, and Boolean combinatorics, where outcomes are combinations of binary events. We look at three restrictive languages that limit what traders can bet on. Even with severely limited languages, we find that LMSR pricing is #Phard, even when the same language admits polynomialtime matching without the market maker. We then propose an approximation technique for pricing permutation markets based on a recent algorithm for online permutation learning. The connections we draw between LMSR pricing and the vast literature on online learning with expert advice may be of independent interest.
A new understanding of prediction markets via noregret learning
 In ACM EC
, 2010
"... We explore the striking mathematical connections that exist between market scoring rules, cost function based prediction markets, and noregret learning. We first show that any cost function based prediction market can be interpreted as an algorithm for the commonly studied problem of learning from ..."
Abstract

Cited by 30 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We explore the striking mathematical connections that exist between market scoring rules, cost function based prediction markets, and noregret learning. We first show that any cost function based prediction market can be interpreted as an algorithm for the commonly studied problem of learning from expert advice by equating the set of outcomes on which bets are placed in the market with the set of experts in the learning setting, and equating trades made in the market with losses observed by the learning algorithm. If the loss of the market organizer is bounded, this bound can be used to derive an O ( √ T) regret bound for the corresponding learning algorithm. We then show that the class of markets with convex cost functions exactly corresponds to the class of Follow the Regularized Leader learning algorithms, with the choice of a cost function in the market corresponding to the choice of a regularizer in the learning problem. Finally, we show an equivalence between market scoring rules and prediction markets with convex cost functions. This implies both that any market scoring rule can be implemented as a cost function based market maker, and that market scoring rules can be interpreted naturally as Follow the Regularized Leader algorithms. These connections provide new insight into how it is that commonly studied markets, such as the Logarithmic Market Scoring Rule, can aggregate opinions into accurate estimates of the likelihood of future events.
A Practical LiquiditySensitive Automated Market Maker
 IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE 11TH ACM CONFERENCE ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE (EC
, 2010
"... Current automated market makers over binary events suffer from two problems that make them impractical. First, they are unable to adapt to liquidity, so trades cause prices to move the same amount in both thick and thin markets. Second, under normal circumstances, the market maker runs at a deficit. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Current automated market makers over binary events suffer from two problems that make them impractical. First, they are unable to adapt to liquidity, so trades cause prices to move the same amount in both thick and thin markets. Second, under normal circumstances, the market maker runs at a deficit. In this paper, we construct a market maker that is both sensitive to liquidity and can run at a profit. Our market maker has bounded loss for any initial level of liquidity and, as the initial level of liquidity approaches zero, worstcase loss approaches zero. For any level of initial liquidity we can establish a boundary in market state space such that, if the market terminates within that boundary, the market maker books a profit regardless of the realized outcome. Furthermore, we provide guidance as to how our market maker can be implemented over very large event spaces through a novel costfunctionbased sampling method.
An OptimizationBased Framework for Automated MarketMaking
 EC'11
, 2011
"... We propose a general framework for the design of securities markets over combinatorial or infinite state or outcome spaces. The framework enables the design of computationally efficient markets tailored to an arbitrary, yet relatively small, space of securities with bounded payoff. We prove that any ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We propose a general framework for the design of securities markets over combinatorial or infinite state or outcome spaces. The framework enables the design of computationally efficient markets tailored to an arbitrary, yet relatively small, space of securities with bounded payoff. We prove that any market satisfying a set of intuitive conditions must price securities via a convex cost function, which is constructed via conjugate duality. Rather than deal with an exponentially large or infinite outcome space directly, our framework only requires optimization over a convex hull. By reducing the problem of automated market making to convex optimization, where many efficient algorithms exist, we arrive at a range of new polynomialtime pricing mechanisms for various problems. We demonstrate the advantages of this framework with the design of some particular markets. We also show that by relaxing the convex hull we can gain computational tractability without compromising the market institution’s bounded budget.
Articles Designing Markets for Prediction
"... � We survey the literature on prediction mechanisms, including prediction markets and peer prediction systems. We pay particular attention to the design process, highlighting the objectives and properties that are important in the design of good prediction mechanisms. Mechanism design has been descr ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
� We survey the literature on prediction mechanisms, including prediction markets and peer prediction systems. We pay particular attention to the design process, highlighting the objectives and properties that are important in the design of good prediction mechanisms. Mechanism design has been described as “inverse game theory. ” Whereas game theorists ask what outcome results from a game, mechanism designers ask what game produces a desired outcome. In this sense, game theorists act like scientists and mechanism designers like engineers. In this article, we survey a number of mechanisms created to elicit predictions, many newly proposed within the last decade. We focus on the engineering questions: How do they work and why? What factors and goals are most important in their
Bluffing and strategic reticence in prediction markets
 In the third Workshop on Internet and Network Economics
, 2007
"... Abstract. We study the equilibrium behavior of informed traders interacting with two types of automated market makers: market scoring rules (MSR) and dynamic parimutuel markets (DPM). Although both MSR and DPM subsidize trade to encourage information aggregation, and MSR is myopically incentive comp ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We study the equilibrium behavior of informed traders interacting with two types of automated market makers: market scoring rules (MSR) and dynamic parimutuel markets (DPM). Although both MSR and DPM subsidize trade to encourage information aggregation, and MSR is myopically incentive compatible, neither mechanism is incentive compatible in general. That is, there exist circumstances when traders can benefit by either hiding information (reticence) or lying about information (bluffing). We examine what information structures lead to straightforward play by traders, meaning that traders reveal all of their information truthfully as soon as they are able. Specifically, we analyze the behavior of riskneutral traders with incomplete information playing in a finiteperiod dynamic game. We employ two different information structures for the logarithmic market scoring rule (LMSR): conditionally independent signals and conditionally dependent signals. When signals of traders are independent conditional on the state of the world, truthful betting is a Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium (PBE) for LMSR. However, when signals are conditionally dependent, there exist joint probability distributions on signals such that at a PBE in LMSR traders have an incentive to bet against their own information—strategically misleading other traders in order to later profit by correcting their errors. In DPM, we show that when traders anticipate sufficiently betterinformed traders entering the market in the future, they have incentive to partially withhold their information by moving the market probability only partway toward their beliefs, or in some cases not participating in the market at all. 1
Prediction Mechanisms That Do Not Incentivize Undesirable Actions
 In WINE
, 2009
"... Abstract. A potential downside of prediction markets is that they may incentivize agents to take undesirable actions in the real world. For example, a prediction market for whether a terrorist attack will happen may incentivize terrorism, and an inhouse prediction market for whether a product will ..."
Abstract

Cited by 11 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. A potential downside of prediction markets is that they may incentivize agents to take undesirable actions in the real world. For example, a prediction market for whether a terrorist attack will happen may incentivize terrorism, and an inhouse prediction market for whether a product will be successfully released may incentivize sabotage. In this paper, we study principalaligned prediction mechanisms– mechanisms that do not incentivize undesirable actions. We characterize all principalaligned proper scoring rules, and we show an “overpayment” result, which roughly states that with n agents, any prediction mechanism that is principalaligned will, in the worst case, require the principal to pay Θ(n) times as much as a mechanism that is not. We extend our model to allow uncertainties about the principal’s utility and restrictions on agents ’ actions, showing a richer characterization and a similar “overpayment ” result.
Mechanism Design on Trust Networks
"... Abstract. We introduce the concept of a trust network—a decentralized payment infrastructure in which payments are routed as IOUs between trusted entities. The trust network has directed links between pairs of agents, with capacities that are related to the credit an agent is willing to extend anoth ..."
Abstract

Cited by 10 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We introduce the concept of a trust network—a decentralized payment infrastructure in which payments are routed as IOUs between trusted entities. The trust network has directed links between pairs of agents, with capacities that are related to the credit an agent is willing to extend another; payments may be routed between any two agents that are connected by a path in the network. The network structure introduces group budget constraints on the payments from a subset of agents to another on the trust network: this generalizes the notion of individually budget constrained bidders. We consider a multiunit auction of identical items among bidders with unit demand, when the auctioneer and bidders are all nodes on a trust network. We define a generalized notion of social welfare for such budgetconstrained bidders, and show that the winner determination problem under this notion of social welfare is NPhard; however the flow structure in a trust network can be exploited to approximate the solution with a factor of 1 − 1/e. We then present a pricing scheme that leads to an incentive compatible, individually rational mechanism with feasible payments that respect the trust network’s payment constraints and that maximizes the modified social welfare to within a factor 1 − 1/e. 1