According to this paper (Optimal Reporting of Predictions), in the notion of
group decision making, besides “accuracy” of the output decision,
personal “influence” on the decision might be another goal function which
is interested to be maximized in experts’ reports. It seems that fully depending
on the case of decision making, either one of these two, regardless of the
other, or a combination of the two could contribute. Now the question is that when
and how they can be dissected? Maybe in the case that there is no exact
“correct” answer, each expert tries to take or keep his influence to the
maximum level, so that he can achieve his own preference as a satisfying reward,
e.g. as Bahador mentioned in the meeting, selecting the best movie in a festival. However in
the case of existing one “correct” answer, when the ultimate reward for all is
in finding a solution which best leads to the correct answer, the goal function
might change to “accuracy”. In long term and iterative cases which mostly
happen in a group of experts of a company, as mentioned in this particular
study, both of these utility functions are to be taken in to account; rationally
thinking, an expert can keep being influential as long as he decides well
enough leading to a profitable outcome or a reliable but not in the eyes of the
boss expert can increase his reliability in front of the boss by increasing his
influence.
For researchers of social decision making, this concept is very important in designing their paradigms and modeling the behavior of the group.
For researchers of social decision making, this concept is very important in designing their paradigms and modeling the behavior of the group.
As we can see in the article, properties
3.3 and 3.4 are given to suggest the optimal report for different ALPHAs, but now my question is that, how can an
expert be known of his prior weight given to him by boss?! Is there any
necessary relationship between self-confidence and the expert’s prior weight in
the boss’s opinion? If not, is the expert necessarily get informed by boss
before starting giving reports?
it is assumed that the alpha is updated by the mentioned formula and all experts know this update rule. the paper is written based on this assumption indeed as by this update rule they try o maximize their posterior weight.
ReplyDeleteActually my question was not about the update rule but rather about the prior weight knowledge. The paper says if your alpha is near zero do this and if your alpha is near one do that. So, before everything, a person should know what his alpha is to decide what to do; this or that.
DeleteI think the question Rahele asks can be asked more generally: suppose I contribute an opinion to a panel made of n-1 other members in a 2-AFC choice problem and I observe the referendum outcome in every trial. How do I compute the weight of my decision for the collective outcome? This problem can be asked in two different forms: when I know what others have voted and what I don't know others vote.
ReplyDeleteOne should be able to address this problem formally. The individual opinion could take a general form or could be specifically identified (eg a simple decision or a decision with confidence).
Bahador, honestly I couldn't understand the relationship between my question and your answer. Would you please clarify it?
Delete