mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Crowdsourced Judgement Elicitation with Endogenous Proficiency

arXiv 1303.0799 ↗First posted 4 Mar 2013cs.GTcited by 30

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Crowdsourcing is now widely used to replace judgement by an expert authority with an aggregate evaluation from a number of non-experts, in applications ranging from rating and categorizing online content to evaluation of student assignments in massively open online courses via peer grading. A key issue in these settings, where direct monitoring is infeasible, is incentivizing agents in the `crowd' to put in effort to make good evaluations, as well as to truthfully report their evaluations. This leads to a new family of information elicitation problems with unobservable ground truth, where an agent's proficiency- the probability with which she correctly evaluates the underlying ground truth- is endogenously determined by her strategic choice of how much effort to put into the task. Our main contribution is a simple, new, mechanism for binary information elicitation for multiple tasks when agents have endogenous proficiencies, with the following properties: (i) Exerting maximum effort followed by truthful reporting of observations is a Nash equilibrium. (ii) This is the equilibrium with maximum payoff to all agents, even when agents have different maximum proficiencies, can use mixed strategies, and can choose a different strategy for each of their tasks. Our information elicitation mechanism requires only minimal bounds on the priors, asks agents to only report their own evaluations, and does not require any conditions on a diverging number of agent reports per task to achieve its incentive properties. The main idea behind our mechanism is to use the presence of multiple tasks and ratings to identify and penalize low-effort agreement: the mechanism rewards agents for agreeing with a `reference' rater on a task but also penalizes for blind agreement by subtracting out a statistic term designed so that agents obtain reward only when they put effort into their observations.

Key facts. Cited by 30 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2013.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 8; 2022: 2; 2023: 3; 2024: 4; 2025: 11; 2026: 2.

30 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024Benchmarking LLMs' Judgments with No Gold Standardcited by 19
  2. 2021Data Pricing in Machine Learning Pipelinescited by 17
  3. 2024Eliciting Informative Text Evaluations with Large Language Modelscited by 14
  4. 2021Data-Free Evaluation of User Contributions in Federated Learningcited by 10
  5. 2022Learning from Pixel-Level Noisy Label : A New Perspective for Light Field Saliency Detectioncited by 5
  6. 2025SelectMix: Enhancing Label Noise Robustness through Targeted Sample Mixingcited by 5
  7. 2021Surprisingly Popular Voting Recovers Rankings, Surprisingly!cited by 4
  8. 2023Truthful Incentive Mechanism for Federated Learning with Crowdsourced Data Labelingcited by 4
  9. 2024Spot Check Equivalence: an Interpretable Metric for Information Elicitation Mechanismscited by 4
  10. 2021Reward-Based 1-bit Compressed Federated Distillation on Blockchaincited by 2
  11. 2021Auctions and Peer Prediction for Academic Peer Reviewcited by 2
  12. 2025Evaluating LLM-Contaminated Crowdsourcing Data Without Ground Truthcited by 2
18 more
  1. 2025Identity-Link IRT for Label-Free LLM Evaluation: Preserving Additivity in TVD-MI Scorescited by 2
  2. 2025Data Reliability Scoringcited by 2
  3. 2022Truthful Generalized Linear Modelscited by 1
  4. 2024Navigating Towards Fairness with Data Selectioncited by 1
  5. 2025Stochastically Dominant Peer Predictioncited by 1
  6. 2025Incentive-Aligned Multi-Source LLM Summariescited by 1
  7. 2021Incentivizing an Unknown Crowdcited by 0
  8. 2021Information Elicitation Meets Clusteringcited by 0
  9. 2021Improving Peer Assessment with Graph Convolutional Networkscited by 0
  10. 2023Bayes classifier cannot be learned from noisy responses with unknown noise ratescited by 0
  11. 2023On The Truthfulness of 'Surprisingly Likely' Responses of Large Language Modelscited by 0
  12. 2025Incentive-Compatible Recovery from Manipulated Signals, with Applications to Decentralized Physical Infrastructurecited by 0
  13. 2025Incentivizing High-Quality Human Annotations with Golden Questionscited by 0
  14. 2025A Cram'er-von Mises Approach to Incentivizing Truthful Data Sharingcited by 0
  15. 2025Users as Annotators: LLM Preference Learning from Comparison Modecited by 0
  16. 2025Multi-agent Adaptive Mechanism Designcited by 0
  17. 2026Knowledge-Free Correlated Agreement for Incentivizing Federated Learningcited by 0
  18. 2026Scoring Rules! Statistical and Strategic Alignment for Text Evaluation Metricscited by 0