FOCS '02 Proceedings of the 43rd Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Selfish Routing and the Price of Anarchy
Selfish Routing and the Price of Anarchy
Does it matter who contributes: a study on featured articles in the german wikipedia
Proceedings of the eighteenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia
Mopping up: modeling wikipedia promotion decisions
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
Intrinsic robustness of the price of anarchy
Proceedings of the forty-first annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing
The structure and complexity of Nash equilibria for a selfish routing game
Theoretical Computer Science
Market sharing games applied to content distribution in ad hoc networks
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications
User satisfaction in competitive sponsored search
Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on World wide web
Hi-index | 0.00 |
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. Here we show that the presence of each of these pathologies can in fact increase the collective productivity of a community. We consider a model for the allocation of credit, in which individuals can choose among projects of varying levels of importance and difficulty, and they compete to receive credit with others who choose the same project. Under the most natural mechanism for allocating credit, in which it is divided among those who succeed at a project in proportion to the project's importance, the resulting selection of projects by self-interested, credit-maximizing individuals will in general be socially sub-optimal. However, we show that there exist ways of allocating credit out of proportion to the true importance of the projects, as well as mechanisms that assign credit out of proportion to the relative contributions of the individuals, that lead credit-maximizing individuals to collectively achieve social optimality. These results therefore suggest how well-known forms of misallocation of scientific credit can in fact serve to channel self-interested behavior into socially optimal outcomes.