Manipulation and Peer Mechanisms: A Survey
0
🛸
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- In peer mechanisms, competitors for a prize are tasked with ranking, grading, or nominating their peers for the prize.
- Since the prize can be valuable, such as financial aid, course grades, or an award, competitors may be tempted to manipulate the mechanism to their advantage.
- This paper surveys approaches to prevent or discourage the manipulation of peer mechanisms.
Plain English Explanation
In some situations, the people competing for a prize are also responsible for deciding who wins that prize. For example, students in a class might be asked to grade or rank each other's work, and the highest-ranked students could receive a better grade or a scholarship.
Since the prize can be very valuable, the competitors may be tempted to try to unfairly influence the outcome, perhaps by giving their friends higher scores or not being completely honest in their evaluations. This is called "manipulating the mechanism."
The researchers in this paper look at different ways that people have tried to prevent or discourage this kind of manipulation in peer-based prize systems. They want to find ways to make the process fairer and more objective.
Technical Explanation
The paper surveys various approaches to preventing or discouraging the manipulation of peer mechanisms, where competitors for a prize are asked to rank, grade, or nominate their peers. Since these prizes can be valuable, such as financial aid, course grades, or awards at a conference, competitors may be tempted to manipulate the system to their own advantage.
The researchers examine techniques like using cognitive hierarchy theory to detect and deter manipulation, designing decentralized peer review mechanisms for open science, and understanding how competition and collaboration affect manipulation in crowdsourcing communities.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a valuable survey of the research challenges in preventing manipulation of peer mechanisms. However, it does not offer any definitive solutions or recommendations. The researchers acknowledge that more work is needed to address the complex dynamics involved in these systems.
One key limitation is that the proposed approaches have not been thoroughly evaluated in real-world settings. It would be important to test these techniques in practical applications to assess their effectiveness and identify any unintended consequences.
Additionally, the paper does not address the underlying incentives and power dynamics that drive manipulation in the first place. Addressing the root causes of this behavior may be necessary to find truly robust solutions.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the significant research challenges in protecting peer mechanisms from manipulation. While various techniques have been explored, more work is needed to develop reliable methods for ensuring the fairness and integrity of these systems.
As peer-based evaluation and decision-making become more prevalent, especially in high-stakes contexts like education and academia, finding ways to detect and deter manipulation will be crucial for maintaining the credibility and trust in these processes.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🛸
0
Manipulation and Peer Mechanisms: A Survey
Matthew Olckers, Toby Walsh
In peer mechanisms, the competitors for a prize also determine who wins. Each competitor may be asked to rank, grade, or nominate peers for the prize. Since the prize can be valuable, such as financial aid, course grades, or an award at a conference, competitors may be tempted to manipulate the mechanism. We survey approaches to prevent or discourage the manipulation of peer mechanisms. We conclude our survey by identifying several important research challenges.
Read more5/31/2024
0
Detection of decision-making manipulation in the pairwise comparisons method
Micha{l} Strada, Sebastian Ernst, Jacek Szybowski, Konrad Ku{l}akowski
Most decision-making models, including the pairwise comparison method, assume the decision-makers honesty. However, it is easy to imagine a situation where a decision-maker tries to manipulate the ranking results. This paper presents three simple manipulation methods in the pairwise comparison method. We then try to detect these methods using appropriately constructed neural networks. Experimental results accompany the proposed solutions on the generated data, showing a considerable manipulation detection level.
Read more5/28/2024
❗
0
Learning to Manipulate under Limited Information
Wesley H. Holliday, Alexander Kristoffersen, Eric Pacuit
By classic results in social choice theory, any reasonable preferential voting method sometimes gives individuals an incentive to report an insincere preference. The extent to which different voting methods are more or less resistant to such strategic manipulation has become a key consideration for comparing voting methods. Here we measure resistance to manipulation by whether neural networks of varying sizes can learn to profitably manipulate a given voting method in expectation, given different types of limited information about how other voters will vote. We trained over 70,000 neural networks of 26 sizes to manipulate against 8 different voting methods, under 6 types of limited information, in committee-sized elections with 5-21 voters and 3-6 candidates. We find that some voting methods, such as Borda, are highly manipulable by networks with limited information, while others, such as Instant Runoff, are not, despite being quite profitably manipulated by an ideal manipulator with full information. For the two probability models for elections that we use, the overall least manipulable of the 8 methods we study are Condorcet methods, namely Minimax and Split Cycle.
Read more4/17/2024
0
Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach to Reveal Algorithmic Unfairness
Shiqi Fang, Zexun Chen, Jake Ansell
With the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act taking effect on 1 August 2024, high-risk AI applications must adhere to stringent transparency and fairness standards. This paper addresses a crucial question: how can we scientifically audit algorithmic fairness? Current methods typically remain at the basic detection stage of auditing, without accounting for more complex scenarios. We propose a novel framework, ``peer-induced fairness'', which combines the strengths of counterfactual fairness and peer comparison strategy, creating a reliable and robust tool for auditing algorithmic fairness. Our framework is universal, adaptable to various domains, and capable of handling different levels of data quality, including skewed distributions. Moreover, it can distinguish whether adverse decisions result from algorithmic discrimination or inherent limitations of the subjects, thereby enhancing transparency. This framework can serve as both a self-assessment tool for AI developers and an external assessment tool for auditors to ensure compliance with the EU AI Act. We demonstrate its utility in small and medium-sized enterprises access to finance, uncovering significant unfairness-41.51% of micro-firms face discrimination compared to non-micro firms. These findings highlight the framework's potential for broader applications in ensuring equitable AI-driven decision-making.
Read more9/9/2024