I consider the setting where reviewers offer very noisy scores for a number of items for the selection of high-quality ones (e.g., peer review of large conference proceedings) whereas the owner of these items knows the true underlying scores but prefers not to provide this information. To address this withholding of information, in this paper, I introduce the \textit{Isotonic Mechanism}, a simple and efficient approach to improving on the imprecise raw scores by leveraging certain information that the owner is incentivized to provide. This mechanism takes as input the ranking of the items from best to worst provided by the owner, in addition to the raw scores provided by the reviewers. It reports adjusted scores for the items by solving a convex optimization problem. Under certain conditions, I show that the owner's optimal strategy is to honestly report the true ranking of the items to her best knowledge in order to maximize the expected utility. Moreover, I prove that the adjusted scores provided by this owner-assisted mechanism are indeed significantly more accurate than the raw scores provided by the reviewers. This paper concludes with several extensions of the Isotonic Mechanism and some refinements of the mechanism for practical considerations.
翻译:我认为,审查者为选择一些高质量项目提供非常吵闹的评分(例如,对大型会议程序的同行审查),而这些项目的所有者却知道真正的基本分数,但不愿提供这一信息。为解决这一问题,我在本文中介绍了“Textit{Isotonic 机制”这一简单而有效的改进不准确的原分数的方法,即利用所有者鼓励提供的某些信息。这一机制除了将审评者提供的原始分数作为输入物主提供的从最佳到最坏的项目的分数。它报告通过解决软盘优化问题调整了项目分数。在某些条件下,我表明,所有者的最佳战略是诚实地报告项目的真实分数,使其掌握最佳的知识,以便最大限度地发挥预期效用。此外,我证明,这一自有协助机制提供的调整分数确实比审评者提供的原始分数要准确得多。本文件最后几次延长了“同位素机制”的扩展,并对实际考虑机制作了一些改进。