| Popis: |
We consider the problem of determining a binary ground truth using advice from a group of independent reviewers (experts) who express their guess about a ground truth correctly with some independent probability (competence). In this setting, when all reviewers are competent (competence greater than one-half), the Condorcet Jury Theorem tells us that adding more reviewers increases the overall accuracy, and if all competences are known, then there exists an optimal weighting of the reviewers. However, in practical settings, reviewers may be noisy or incompetent, i.e., competence below half, and the number of experts may be small, so the asymptotic Condorcet Jury Theorem is not practically relevant. In such cases we explore appointing one or more chairs (judges) who determine the weight of each reviewer for aggregation, creating multiple levels. However, these chairs may be unable to correctly identify the competence of the reviewers they oversee, and therefore unable to compute the optimal weighting. We give conditions when a set of chairs is able to weight the reviewers optimally, and depending on the competence distribution of the agents, give results about when it is better to have more chairs or more reviewers. Through numerical simulations we show that in some cases it is better to have more chairs, but in many cases it is better to have more reviewers. |
