Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Optimal Scoring Rules for Multi-dimensional Effort

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2211.03302 v2 pith:43ZANMWD submitted 2022-11-07 cs.GT econ.TH

classification cs.GTecon.TH
keywords scoringruleseffortruleagentapproximatedesignframework
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper develops a framework for the design of scoring rules to optimally incentivize an agent to exert a multi-dimensional effort. This framework is a generalization to strategic agents of the classical knapsack problem (cf. Briest, Krysta, and V\"ocking, 2005, Singer, 2010) and it is foundational to applying algorithmic mechanism design to the classroom. The paper identifies two simple families of scoring rules that guarantee constant approximations to the optimal scoring rule. The truncated separate scoring rule is the sum of single dimensional scoring rules that is truncated to the bounded range of feasible scores. The threshold scoring rule gives the maximum score if reports exceed a threshold and zero otherwise. Approximate optimality of one or the other of these rules is similar to the bundling or selling separately result of Babaioff, Immorlica, Lucier, and Weinberg (2014). Finally, we show that the approximate optimality of the best of those two simple scoring rules is robust when the agent's choice of effort is made sequentially.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Scoring Rules! Statistical and Strategic Alignment for Text Evaluation Metrics

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Statistical alignment with human ratings does not imply strategic alignment: LLM-as-a-Judge is highly correlated but easily manipulated, while a new statement-level mutual-information metric is robust to manipulation.

Pith tools