Belief Elicitation with Binary Outcomes: A Comparison of Quadratic and Binarized Scoring Rules

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nisvan Erkal ◽  
Lata Gangadharan ◽  
Boon Han Koh
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 955-987 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elias Tsakas

Is it possible to guarantee that the mere exposure of a subject to a belief elicitation task will not affect the very same beliefs that we are trying to elicit? In this paper, we introduce mechanisms that make it simultaneously strictly dominant for the subject (a) not to acquire any information that could potentially lead to belief updating as a response to the incentives provided by the mechanism itself, and (b) to report his beliefs truthfully. Such mechanisms are called robust scoring rules. We prove that robust scoring rules always exist under mild assumptions on the subject's costs for acquiring information. Moreover, every scoring rule can become approximately robust, in the sense that if we scale down the incentives sufficiently, we will approximate with arbitrary precision the beliefs that the subject would have held if he had not been confronted with the belief‐elicitation task.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur Carvalho

Incentive-compatible methods for eliciting beliefs, such as proper scoring rules, often rely on strong assumptions about how humans behave when making decisions under risk and uncertainty. For example, standard proper scoring rules assume that humans are risk neutral, an assumption that is often violated in practice. Under such an assumption, proper scoring rules induce honest reporting of beliefs, in a sense that experts maximize their expected scores from a proper scoring rule by honestly reporting their beliefs.Sandroni and Shmaya [Economic Theory Bulletin, volume 1, issue 1, 2013] suggested a remarkable mechanism based on proper scoring rules that induces honest reporting of beliefs without any assumptions on experts’ risk attitudes. In particular, the authors claimed that the mechanism relies only on the natural assumptions of probabilistic sophistication and dominance. We suggest in this paper that the reduction of compound lotteries axiom is another assumption required for Sandroni and Shmaya’s mechanism to induce honest reporting of beliefs. We further elaborate on the implications of such an extra assumption in light of recent findings regarding the reduction of compound lotteries axiom.


2020 ◽  
Vol 81 ◽  
pp. 102315
Author(s):  
Nisvan Erkal ◽  
Lata Gangadharan ◽  
Boon Han Koh

Methodology ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 132-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Höfler

A standardized index for effect intensity, the translocation relative to range (TRR), is discussed. TRR is defined as the difference between the expectations of an outcome under two conditions (the absolute increment) divided by the maximum possible amount for that difference. TRR measures the shift caused by a factor relative to the maximum possible magnitude of that shift. For binary outcomes, TRR simply equals the risk difference, also known as the inverse number needed to treat. TRR ranges from –1 to 1 but is – unlike a correlation coefficient – a measure for effect intensity, because it does not rely on variance parameters in a certain population as do effect size measures (e.g., correlations, Cohen’s d). However, the use of TRR is restricted on outcomes with fixed and meaningful endpoints given, for instance, for meaningful psychological questionnaires or Likert scales. The use of TRR vs. Cohen’s d is illustrated with three examples from Psychological Science 2006 (issues 5 through 8). It is argued that, whenever TRR applies, it should complement Cohen’s d to avoid the problems related to the latter. In any case, the absolute increment should complement d.


10.29007/v68w ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying Zhu ◽  
Mirek Truszczynski

We study the problem of learning the importance of preferences in preference profiles in two important cases: when individual preferences are aggregated by the ranked Pareto rule, and when they are aggregated by positional scoring rules. For the ranked Pareto rule, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a ranking of preferences such that the ranked profile correctly decides all the examples, whenever such a ranking exists. We also show that the problem to learn a ranking maximizing the number of correctly decided examples (also under the ranked Pareto rule) is NP-hard. We obtain similar results for the case of weighted profiles when positional scoring rules are used for aggregation.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Rayner ◽  
Jonathan Richard Iain Coleman ◽  
Kirstin Lee Purves ◽  
Ewan Carr ◽  
Rosa Cheesman ◽  
...  

Background: Anxiety and depressive disorders can be chronic and disabling, and are associated with poor outcomes. Whilst there are effective treatments, access to these is variable and only a fraction of those in need receive treatment. Aims: The primary aim was to investigate sociodemographic correlates of lifetime treatment access and unpick the relationships between socioeconomic features and treatment inequalities. As such, we aimed to identify groups at greatest risk of never accessing treatment and targets for intervention. Methods: We tested for sociodemographic factors associated with treatment access in UK Biobank participants with lifetime generalised anxiety or major depressive disorder, performing multivariable logistic regressions on two binary outcomes: treatment-seeking (n=33,704) and treatment receipt (n=28,940). Results: Treatment access was less likely in those who were male, from a UK ethnic minority background and who self-medicated with alcohol or drugs. Treatment access was more likely in those who reported use of self-help strategies, with lower income (<£30,000) and greater neighbourhood deprivation, as well as those with a university degree. Conclusion: This work on lifetime treatment seeking and receipt replicates known correlates of treatment receipt during time of treatment need. Our focus on treatment-seeking and receipt highlights two targets for improving treatment access. More work is required to understand the psychosocial barriers to treatment, which mediate the associations observed here.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document