Abstract:Purpose - In forecasting unknown quantities, risk and finance decision makers often rely on one or more biased experts, statistical specialists representing parties with an interest in the decision maker's final forecast. This problem arises in a variety of contexts, and the decision maker may represent a corporate enterprise, rating agency, government regulator, etc. The purpose of the paper is to assist decision makers, experts, and others to have a better understanding of the dynamics of the problem, and to adopt strategies and practices that enhance efficiency.Design/methodology/approach - The problem is formulated as a two-person, non-cooperative Bayesian game with the decision maker and one expert as players, and perfect Bayesian equilibrium solutions are identified. Then the analysis is extended to variations of the game in which the expert's loss function is not common knowledge, and in which there are multiple experts.Findings - In the struggle for information between the decision maker and the experts, the experts generally benefit from greater uncertainty about the parameters of the model. Thus, in attempting to elicit as much information as possible from the experts, the decision maker must strive to minimize all sources of uncertainty.Research limitations/implications - As in most Bayesian games, the analysis requires that a variety of process assumptions and model parameters be common knowledge. These conditions may be difficult to satisfy in real-world applications.Practical implications - The principal finding of the study is that there is truly a struggle for information between the decision maker and the experts. This generally encourages the experts to inject as much uncertainty as possible into the process. To counter this effect, the decision maker might: provide incentives for the experts to increase their sampling information; try to mitigate specific uncertainties regarding the model parameters; and try to increase the number of experts.Originality/value - This is the first paper to apply the framework of signaling games to the problem of eliciting information from biased experts. It is of value to decision makers, experts, and economic researchers.

Eliminating Public Knowledge Biases in Small Group Predictions

Progress in Absorber R&D 2: Windows

False Consensus, Information Theory, and Prediction Markets

Mitigating Biases in Collective Decision-Making: Enhancing Performance in the Face of Fake News

Wisdom of the Confident: Using Social Interactions to Eliminate the Bias in Wisdom of the Crowds

Democratic forecast: Small groups predict the future better than individuals and crowds.

Proxy Forecasting to Avoid Stochastic Decision Rules in Decision Markets

Learning From Aggregated Opinion

Learning of Optimal Forecast Aggregation in Partial Evidence Environments

Cooperation dynamics in public goods games with evolving cognitive bias

Probabilistic Social Learning Improves the Public's Detection of Misinformation

Self-Resolving Prediction Markets for Unverifiable Outcomes

From prediction markets to interpretable collective intelligence

Social Influence Undermines the Wisdom of the Crowd in Sequential Decision Making

Timely Information from Prediction Markets

Reducing Optimism Bias in Incomplete Cooperative Games

Aggregated knowledge from a small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of large crowds

Forecasts From Biased Experts: A "Meta-Credibility" Problem

Learning Performance of Prediction Markets with Kelly Bettors

Putting Peer Prediction Under the Micro(economic)scope and Making Truth-telling Focal

The Surprising Benefits of Base Rate Neglect in Robust Aggregation