Sigal Oren

IJCAI Conference 2022 Conference Paper

Picking the Right Winner: Why Tie-Breaking in Crowdsourcing Contests Matters

• Coral Haggiag
• Sigal Oren
• Ella Segev

We present a complete information game-theoretic model for crowdsourcing contests. We observe that in design contests, coding contests and other domains, separating low quality submissions from high quality ones is often easy. However, pinning down the best submission is more challenging since there is no objective measure. We model this situation by assuming that each contestant has an ability, which we interpret as its probability of submitting a high-quality submission. After the contestants decide whether or not they want to participate, the organizer of the contest needs to break ties between the high quality submissions. A common assumption in the literature is that the exact tie-breaking rule does not matter as long as ties are broken consistently. However, we show that the choice of the tie-breaking rule may have significant implications on the efficiency of the contest. Our results highlight both qualitative and quantitative differences between various deterministic tie-breaking rules. Perhaps counterintuitively, we show that in many scenarios, the utility of the organizer is maximized when ties are broken in favor of successful players with lower ability. Nevertheless, we show that the natural rule of choosing the submission of the successful player with the highest ability guarantees the organizer at least 1/3 of its utility under any tie-breaking rule. To complement these results, we provide an upper bound of Hn ~ \ln(n) on the price of anarchy (the ratio between the social welfare of the optimal solution and the social welfare of the Nash equilibrium). We show that this ratio is tight when ties are broken in favor of players with higher abilities.

UAI Conference 2021 Conference Paper

Stochastic model for sunk cost bias

• Jon M. Kleinberg
• Sigal Oren
• Manish Raghavan
• Nadav Sklar

We present a novel model for capturing the behavior of an agent exhibiting sunk-cost bias in a stochastic environment. Agents exhibiting sunk-cost bias take into account the effort they have already spent on an endeavor when they evaluate whether to continue or abandon it. We model planning tasks in which an agent with this type of bias tries to reach a designated goal. Our model structures this problem as a type of Markov decision process: loosely speaking, the agent traverses a directed acyclic graph with probabilistic transitions, paying costs for its actions as it tries to reach a target node containing a specified reward. The agent’s sunk cost bias is modeled by a cost that it incurs for abandoning the traversal: if the agent decides to stop traversing the graph, it incurs a cost of $\lambda \cdot C_{sunk}$, where ${\lambda \geq 0}$ is a parameter that captures the extent of the bias and $C_{sunk}$ is the sum of costs already invested. We analyze the behavior of two types of agents: naive agents that are unaware of their bias, and sophisticated agents that are aware of it. Since optimal (bias-free) behavior in this problem can involve abandoning the traversal before reaching the goal, the bias exhibited by these types of agents can result in sub-optimal behavior by shifting their decisions about abandonment. We show that in contrast to optimal agents, it is computationally hard to compute the optimal policy for a sophisticated agent. Our main results quantify the loss exhibited by these two types of agents with respect to an optimal agent. We present both general and topology-specific bounds.

AAAI Conference 2020 Conference Paper

Designing Committees for Mitigating Biases

• Michal Feldman
• Yishay Mansour
• Noam Nisan
• Sigal Oren
• Moshe Tennenholtz

It is widely observed that individuals prefer to interact with others who are more similar to them (this phenomenon is termed homophily). This similarity manifests itself in various ways such as beliefs, values and education. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that when people make hiring choices, for example, their similarity to the candidate plays a role in their choice. In this paper, we suggest that putting the decision in the hands of a committee instead of a single person can reduce this bias. We study a novel model of voting in which a committee of experts is constructed to reduce the biases of its members. We first present voting rules that optimally reduce the biases of a given committee. Our main results include the design of committees, for several settings, that are able to reach a nearly optimal (unbiased) choice. We also provide a thorough analysis of the trade-offs between the committee size and the obtained error. Our model is inherently different from the well-studied models of voting that focus on aggregation of preferences or on aggregation of information due to the introduction of similarity biases.

STOC Conference 2014 Conference Paper

Economic efficiency requires interaction

• Shahar Dobzinski
• Noam Nisan
• Sigal Oren

UAI Conference 2013 Conference Paper

Pay or Play

• Sigal Oren
• Michael Schapira
• Moshe Tennenholtz

We introduce the class of pay or play games, which captures scenarios in which each decision maker is faced with a choice between two actions: one with a fixed payoff and another with a payoff dependent on others’ selected actions. This is, arguably, the simplest setting that models selection among certain and uncertain outcomes in a multi-agent system. We study the properties of equilibria in such games from both a game-theoretic perspective and a computational perspective. Our main positive result establishes the existence of a semi-strong equilibrium in every such game. We show that although simple, pay or play games contain well-studied environments, e. g. , vaccination games. We discuss the interesting implications of our results for these environments.

FOCS Conference 2011 Conference Paper

How Bad is Forming Your Own Opinion?

• David Bindel
• Jon M. Kleinberg
• Sigal Oren

A long-standing line of work in economic theory has studied models by which a group of people in a social network, each holding a numerical opinion, can arrive at a shared opinion through repeated averaging with their neighbors in the network. Motivated by the observation that consensus is rarely reached in real opinion dynamics, we study a related sociological model in which individuals' intrinsic beliefs counterbalance the averaging process and yield a diversity of opinions. By interpreting the repeated averaging as best-response dynamics in an underlying game with natural payoffs, and the limit of the process as an equilibrium, we are able to study the cost of disagreement in these models relative to a social optimum. We provide a tight bound on the cost at equilibrium relative to the optimum, our analysis draws a connection between these agreement models and extremal problems for generalized eigenvalues. We also consider a natural network design problem in this setting, where adding links to the underlying network can reduce the cost of disagreement at equilibrium.

STOC Conference 2011 Conference Paper

Mechanisms for (mis)allocating scientific credit

• Jon M. Kleinberg
• Sigal Oren

Scientific communities confer many forms of credit --- both implicit and explicit --- on their successful members, and it has long been argued that the motivation provided by these forms of credit helps to shape a community's collective attention toward different lines of research. The allocation of scientific credit, however, has also been the focus of long-documented pathologies: certain research questions are said to command too much credit, at the expense of other equally important questions; and certain researchers (in a version of Robert Merton's Matthew Effect) seem to receive a disproportionate share of the credit, even when the contributions of others are similar.