Eliciting reliable human feedback is essential for many machine learning tasks, such as learning from noisy labels and aligning AI systems with human preferences. Peer prediction mechanisms incentivize truthful reporting without ground truth verification by scoring agents based on correlations with peers. Traditional mechanisms, which ensure that truth-telling maximizes the \textbf{expected scores} in equilibrium, can elicit honest information while assuming agents' utilities are \textbf{linear functions} of their scores. However, in practice, non-linear payment rules are usually preferred, or agents' utilities are inherently non-linear. We propose \emph{stochastically dominant truthfulness (SD-truthfulness)} as a stronger guarantee: the score distribution of truth-telling stochastically dominates all other strategies, incentivizing truthful reporting for a wide range of monotone utility functions. Our first observation is that no existing peer prediction mechanism naturally satisfies this criterion without strong assumptions. A simple solution - rounding scores into binary lotteries — can enforce SD-truthfulness, but often degrades \emph{sensitivity}, a key property related to fairness and statistical efficiency. We demonstrate how a more careful application of rounding can better preserve sensitivity. Furthermore, we introduce a new enforced agreement (EA) mechanism that is theoretically guaranteed to be SD-truthful in binary-signal settings and, under mild assumptions, empirically achieves the highest sensitivity among all known SD-truthful mechanisms.

In the setting of conference peer review, the conference aims to accept high-quality papers and reject low-quality papers based on noisy review scores. A recent work proposes the isotonic mechanism, which can elicit the ranking of paper qualities from an author with multiple submissions to help improve the conference's decisions. However, the isotonic mechanism relies on the assumption that the author's utility is both an increasing and a convex function with respect to the review score, which is often violated in realistic settings (e.g.~when authors aim to maximize the number of accepted papers). In this paper, we propose a sequential review mechanism that can truthfully elicit the ranking information from authors while only assuming the agent's utility is increasing with respect to the true quality of her accepted papers. The key idea is to review the papers of an author in a sequence based on the provided ranking and conditioning the review of the next paper on the review scores of the previous papers. Advantages of the sequential review mechanism include: 1) eliciting truthful ranking information in a more realistic setting than prior work; 2) reducing the reviewing workload and increasing the average quality of papers being reviewed; 3) incentivizing authors to write fewer papers of higher quality.

Peer prediction mechanisms motivate high-quality feedback with provable guarantees. However, current methods only apply to rather simple reports, like multiple-choice or scalar numbers. We aim to broaden these techniques to the larger domain of text-based reports, drawing on the recent developments in large language models (LLMs). This vastly increases the applicability of peer prediction mechanisms as textual feedback is the norm in a large variety of feedback channels: peer reviews, e-commerce customer reviews, and comments on social media.

Because high-quality data is like oxygen for AI systems, effectively eliciting information from crowdsourcing workers has become a first-order problem for developing high-performance machine learning algorithms. Two prevalent paradigms, spot-checking and peer prediction, enable the design of mechanisms to evaluate and incentivize high-quality data from human labelers. So far, at least three metrics have been proposed to compare the performances of these techniques \citepzhang2022high,gao2016incentivizing,burrell2021measurement. However, different metrics lead to divergent and even contradictory results in various contexts. In this paper, we harmonize these divergent stories, showing that two of these metrics are actually the same within certain contexts and explain the divergence of the third. Moreover, we unify these different contexts by introducingSpot Check Equivalence, which offers an interpretable metric for the effectiveness of a peer prediction mechanism. Finally, we present two approaches to compute spot check equivalence in various contexts, where simulation results verify the effectiveness of our proposed metric.

Peer prediction aims to incentivize truthful reports from agents whose reports cannot be assessed with any objective ground truthful information. In the multi-task setting where each agent is asked multiple questions, a sequence of mechanisms have been proposed which are truthful — truth-telling is guaranteed to be an equilibrium, or even better, informed truthful — truth-telling is guaranteed to be one of the best-paid equilibria. However, these guarantees assume agents’ strategies are restricted to be task-independent: an agent’s report on a task is not affected by her information about other tasks.

We consider the crowdsourcing setting where, in response to the assigned tasks, agents strategically decide both how much effort to exert (from a continuum) and whether to manipulate their reports. The goal is to design payment mechanisms that (1) satisfy limited liability (all payments are non-negative), (2) reduce the principal’s cost of budget, (3) incentivize effort and (4) incentivize truthful responses. In our framework, the payment mechanism composes a performance measurement, which noisily evaluates agents’ effort based on their reports, and a payment function, which converts the scores output by the performance measurement to payments.

We undertake a system-level analysis of the conference peer review process. The process involves three constituencies with different objectives: authors want their papers accepted at prestigious venues (and quickly), conferences want to present a program with many high-quality and few low-quality papers, and reviewers want to avoid being overburdened by reviews. These objectives are far from aligned; the key obstacle is that the evaluation of the merits of a submission (both by the authors and the reviewers) is inherently noisy. Over the years, conferences have experimented with numerous policies and innovations to navigate the tradeoffs. These experiments include setting various bars for acceptance, varying the number of reviews per submission, requiring prior reviews to be included with resubmissions, and others. The purpose of the present work is to investigate, both analytically and using agent-based simulations, how well various policies work, and more importantly, why they do or do not work.

We initiate the study of information elicitation mechanisms for a crowd containing both self-interested agents, who respond to incentives, and adversarial agents, who may collude to disrupt the system. Our mechanisms work in the peer prediction setting where ground truth need not be accessible to the mechanism or even exist.