Search for: All records

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. 

We study the voting game where agents' preferences are endogenously decided by the information they receive, and they can collaborate in a group. We show that strategic voting behaviors have a positive impact on leading to the "correct" decision, outperforming the common non-strategic behavior of informative voting and sincere voting. Our results give merit to strategic voting for making good decisions. To this end, we investigate a natural model, where voters' preferences between two alternatives depend on a discrete state variable that is not directly observable. Each voter receives a private signal that is correlated with the state variable. We reveal a surprising equilibrium between a strategy profile being a strong equilibrium and leading to the decision favored by the majority of agents conditioned on them knowing the ground truth (referred to as the informed majority decision): as the size of the vote goes to infinity, every ε-strong Bayes Nash Equilibrium with ε converging to 0 formed by strategic agents leads to the informed majority decision with probability converging to 1. On the other hand, we show that informative voting leads to the informed majority decision only under unbiased instances, and sincere voting leads to the informed majority decision only when it also forms an equilibrium.