We propose measurement integrity, a property related to ex post reward fairness, as a novel desideratum for peer prediction mechanisms in many natural applications. Like robustness against strategic reporting, the property that has been the primary focus of the peer prediction literature, measurement integrity is an important consideration for understanding the practical performance of peer prediction mechanisms.

Do common assumptions about the way that crowd workers make mistakes in microtask (labeling) applications manifest in real crowdsourcing data? Prior work only addresses this question indirectly. Instead, it primarily focuses on designing new label aggregation algorithms, seeming to imply that better performance justifies any additional assumptions. However, empirical evidence in past instances has raised significant challenges to common assumptions. We continue this line of work, using crowdsourcing data itself as directly as possible to interrogate several basic assumptions about workers and tasks. We find strong evidence that the assumption that workers respond correctly to each task with a constant probability, which is common in theoretical work, is implausible in real data. We also illustrate how heterogeneity among tasks and workers can take different forms, which have different implications for the design and evaluation of label aggregation algorithms.

We propose a relaxation of common belief called factional belief that is suitable for the analysis of strategic coordination on social networks. We show how this definition can be used to analyze revolt games on general graphs, including by giving an efficient algorithm that characterizes a structural result about the possible equilibria of such games. This extends prior work on common knowledge and common belief, which has been too restrictive for use in understanding strategic coordination and cooperation in social network settings.