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.

Eliciting Forecasts from Self-interested Experts: Scoring Rules for Decision Makers

Incentivizing honest performative predictions with proper scoring rules

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

Proxy Forecasting to Avoid Stochastic Decision Rules in Decision Markets

Optimization of Scoring Rules

Optimal Scoring Rule Design under Partial Knowledge

Strategy-Proof Incentives for Predictions

A New Understanding of Prediction Markets Via No-Regret Learning

Beyond Strictly Proper Scoring Rules: The Importance of Being Local

Right Decisions from Wrong Predictions: A Mechanism Design Alternative to Individual Calibration

Proof of principle for a self-governing prediction and forecasting reward algorithm

Joint Scoring Rules: Zero-Sum Competition Avoids Performative Prediction

Calibration Scoring Rules for Practical Prediction Training

On Manipulation in Prediction Markets When Participants Influence Outcomes Directly

An Axiomatic Study of Scoring Rule Markets

The Strategy of Experts for Repeated Predictions

No-Regret Online Prediction with Strategic Experts

Optimal Scoring Rules for Multi-dimensional Effort

Self-Resolving Prediction Markets for Unverifiable Outcomes

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

Local scale invariance and robustness of proper scoring rules