Strictly Proper Contract Functions Can Be Arbitrage-Free
Eric Neyman, Tim Roughgarden
Abstract
We consider mechanisms for truthfully eliciting probabilistic predictions from a group of experts. The standard approach --- using a proper scoring rule to separately reward each expert --- is not robust to collusion: experts may collude to misreport their beliefs in a way that guarantees them a larger total reward no matter the eventual outcome. It is a long-standing open question whether there is a truthful elicitation mechanism that makes any such collusion (also called "arbitrage") impossible. We resolve this question positively, exhibiting a class of strictly proper arbitrage-free contract functions. These contract functions have two parts: one ensures that the total reward of a coalition of experts depends only on the average of their reports; the other ensures that changing this average report hurts the experts under at least one outcome.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on1
Related papers
- Information Elicitation from Rowdy CrowdsGrant Schoenebeck, Fang-Yi Yu, Yichi ZhangWWW 2021 · 18 citations
- Stochastically Dominant Peer PredictionYichi Zhang, Shengwei Xu, Grant Schoenebeck, David M. PennockNeurIPS 2025 · 2 citations
- Hedging and Approximate Truthfulness in Traditional Forecasting CompetitionsMary Monroe, Anish Thilagar, Melody Hsu, Rafael M. FrongilloAAAI 2025 · 1 citation
- Wisdom of the Crowd Voting: Truthful Aggregation of Voter Information and PreferencesGrant Schoenebeck, Biaoshuai TaoNeurIPS 2021 · 22 citations
- No-Regret and Incentive-Compatible Online LearningRupert Freeman, David M. Pennock, Chara Podimata, Jennifer Wortman VaughanICML 2020 · 19 citations
