Konstantinos I. Stouras

dblp:269/4947 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2020
0000-0002-2398-9566ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-authorTheory of computation · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › solution concepts in games › equilibrium concepts
bayes-nash equilibrium
0.412020
Prizes on Crowdsourcing Platforms: An Equilibrium Analysis of Competing Contests · EC 2020
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › mechanism design
contest design
0.412020
Prizes on Crowdsourcing Platforms: An Equilibrium Analysis of Competing Contests · EC 2020
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › incentive mechanism
crowdsourcing contests
0.412020
Prizes on Crowdsourcing Platforms: An Equilibrium Analysis of Competing Contests · EC 2020
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design
equilibrium analysis
0.412020
Prizes on Crowdsourcing Platforms: An Equilibrium Analysis of Competing Contests · EC 2020
Algorithmic game theory and mechanism design › resource allocation
prize allocation
0.412020
Prizes on Crowdsourcing Platforms: An Equilibrium Analysis of Competing Contests · EC 2020

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

game theory · 0.4equilibrium analysis · 0.4
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2020 Prizes on Crowdsourcing Platforms: An Equilibrium Analysis of Competing Contests
abstract
On a typical crowdsourcing platform solvers can self-select which (if any) of the concurrently running contests to participate in. Thus, firms which offer prizes and organize contests on these platforms are competing among themselves (for solver participation and effort). We formalize and model this competition among contests and examine the equilibrium outcomes. Our analysis reveals that, in general, there is a unique dominant strategy for each firm to offer multiple identical prizes. Moreover, when the quality of submitted solutions is sufficiently noise-driven (as opposed to effort-driven), we find that a single winner-take-all reward is the unique equilibrium allocation. Our analytical framework integrates and extends prior results of the monopolistic contest.
Konstantinos I. Stouras, Sanjiv Erat, Kenneth C. Lichtendahl Jr.
EC1