\section{Setting and summary results}
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Goal}\label{subsec:goal}
Suppose we have a proposition that may be either true or false.  
Our goal is to provide strong arguments for the possibility of the creation of a system that can elicit, from 
an arbitrary group of experts, the probability of the truth of the proposition together with
the relevant collective information in a comprehensible form. This information
will fully substantiate (interpret) the group probability. More precisely, we outline a way to create a \emph{self-resolving} prediction market with 
\emph{play money} that, in addition, incentivizes \emph{direct} information exchange between experts. 
This simultaneously solves the following three problems:
\begin{itemize}
    \item information exchange in an ordinary prediction market may be broken (see, e.g.,~\cite{AlKiPf2009});
    \item all information aggregated by an ordinary market is encoded in the final price, which is a non-interpretable value between $0$ and $1$;
    \item we can resolve an ordinary market and distribute gains and losses \emph{only} after it becomes publicly known whether the proposition in question is true or false.
\end{itemize}
Since the proposed system overcomes these limitations, it could
incentivize experts from all over the world to brainstorm scientific or medical problems in
a very efficient manner.

For example, suppose there is a certain open scientific problem and consider a proposition that it will be solved within a specified time. 
To be even more specific, consider a proposition that sounds as follows: 
the mortality rate of a certain disease~$\mathfrak{d}$ will drop below~$\mathfrak{r}$ by time~$\mathfrak{t}$. 
Here the point~$\mathfrak{t}$ is chosen to be sufficiently distant in order for there to be enough time 
to create and implement a new medicine, and 
the rate~$\mathfrak{r}$ is chosen to be sufficiently small in order for the truth of the proposition to mean substantial progress in the control
of~$\mathfrak{d}$. The system will incentivize experts to directly share information consisting of reasoned arguments about what obstacles might be in solving the problem, or what might help to overcome known difficulties and to solve the problem.
These arguments may include references to scientific papers, to data files, 
to results obtained by an artificial intelligence available to someone of experts, etc.: the shared information may be of any nature. The final result will be an aggregated information concerning
the problem, together with the probability that the problem will be solved, given this information.
We emphasize that we does \emph{not} need to wait until~$\mathfrak{t}$ in order to obtain this result and to finish the work of the system.

Certainly, we can consider
any logical propositions: they need not be associated with global scientific problems. Continuing the theme of medicine, 
we can give the following examples: ``the tumor under study is of the specified type'', ``the patient under the specified treatment will survive five years'', etc. Note that even conventional prediction markets have proved to be useful in medicine, for example to make diagnosis in complex medical cases~\cite{MeLoSi2016} or to forecast the spread of infectious diseases~\cite{PoNeNe2007}. 

In our main considerations, we do \emph{not} assume experts to be rational: they are not required to be Bayesian, nor to satisfy the von Neumann--Morgenstern axioms. We show how our studies relate to
\begin{itemize}
\item
the classic works~\cite{TvKa1974, FoTv1995} in behavioral economics by Kahneman, Tversky, and~Fox; 
\item
the line of research on
a consensus probability initiated by Aumann, which includes inter alia the studies \cite{Au1976, NiBrGe1990, FeFoPe2005};
\item
the discussion \cite{Ma2006,Gje2004,WoZi2006,OtSo2007} started by Manski and concerning economic equilibrium in prediction markets; 
\item
and many other theoretical and empirical studies in economics, probability, statistics, and decision theory.
\end{itemize}









\subsection{Notation}\label{subsec:notation} 
Here we present our basic notation, which is partially borrowed from~\cite{Wi2009}.
\begin{itemize}
    \item Suppose there is a proposition that 
may be revealed to be either true or false. 
This means that we have a propositional variable~$\bm\omega$.
   
    By $\bm E \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \{1,\dots,N\}$ we denote a population of experts whose collective belief and information about~$\bm\omega$ we would like to obtain. Our object of study is the pair $(\bm\omega, \bm E)$, which is assumed to be fixed throughout the paper (except in cases where we deal with real data and where 
    $\bm\omega$ and $\bm E$ represent certain real-life propositions and experts).
    \item The notions of the truth and falsity of propositions can be formalized in terms of assignments to propositional variables. Let $A$ be a set of propositional variables. Then the notation $\alpha\mathbin{@} A$ means that $\alpha$ is 
    an assignment to $A$, i.e. $\alpha$ is a function from $A$ to $\Omega\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq\{0,1\}$. An assignment is also called a world. 
   
    In particular, 
    for $\{\bm\omega\}$ we have two assignments: the world $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$ where $\bm\omega$ is true, and the world $\bm\omega \mapsto 0$ where $\bm\omega$ is false. 
   
    \item We tell that worlds $\alpha\mathbin{@} A$ and $\beta\mathbin{@} B$ are consistent (and write $\alpha\sim\beta$) if 
    they assigns the same values to the variables in $A\cap B$: $\alpha\vert\cii{A\cap B} = \beta\vert\cii{A\cap B}$. 
   
   
   
   
   
   
    \item Suppose there is a binary random generator (one and the same throughout the article) that takes a parameter $\pi\in [0,1]$ and returns either~$1$ with probability~$\pi$ or~$0$ with probability $1-\pi$. Here $\pi$ is a probability just in the sense that it is a parameter of our random generator, which can be of a physical or algorithmic nature. Concerning algorithmic randomness, 
    see the survey {\cite[\nopp Section~2.6]{UsSe1987trans}} with references 
    to Knuth, Kolmogorov, Martin-L\"of, von Mises, et~al.
    Regardless of the implementation details, we formalize the generator as the parametric family $\bm\omega[\pi,t]$ of propositional variables which correspond to the following propositions: 
    if we call, at time~$t$, the generator with parameter~$\pi$, then it will returns~$1$. 
   
    We also note that there are two assignments over each one-element set $\{\bm\omega[\pi,t]\}$. 
    Throughout the article, time $t$ in $\bm\omega[\pi,t]$ is irrelevant or clear from the context, and we shorten the notation to $\bm\omega[\pi]$.
   
   
   
    \item We also introduce some non-standard but convenient notation for certain limit relations. By the symbol $\searrow$ we denote the relation ``decreases to''. Formally speaking, ``$y\searrow b$ as $x\searrow a$'' means that $y$ is an increasing function of $x$ and~$\lim\limits_{x\to a+} y= b$.
\end{itemize}

\subsection{On our axioms}
First of all, we need to fix what we mean by experts' probabilities and information. There are many ways to assign personal probabilities to individuals: 
see the survey~\cite{Fi1986} or the book~\cite{PaIn2009} with references to de Finetti, Ramsey, Savage, et~al. 
In Section~\ref{subsec:obj_bel}, we present a construction that is different from these theories and is more suitable for our goal of combining experts' information. Here we give its brief description.

First, we simply postulate that for any expert $n \in \bm E$ there exists a unique value in $[0,1]$ that is considered in our models 
as the expert~$n$'s probability of $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$. Second, we introduce a system of axioms that implies that all these probabilities are values of a functional 
over $2^{\bm\Gamma}$, where $\bm\Gamma$ is a finite set of \emph{objective} signals, each of which is known to one or more experts in $\bm E$.
These signals are units of raw information that have been generated directly by external events in the experts' empirical experience. We formalize each signal as a propositional variable with a value already
assigned to it. In fact, we can formalize signals as abstract elements of a set: we need propositional logic notation only to show, 
in Sections~\ref{sec:cond_prob} and~\ref{subsec:pen_model}, the
relation between our construction and the  
classical Bayesian model~\cite{Au1976} 
of knowledge. 

We do not rely on the aforementioned classical theories~\cite{Fi1986} of personal probabilities, because they involve various assumptions on 
experts' way of thinking. On the contrary, we do \emph{not} fix what each expert means by his or her probability: in our axioms this is also determined by objective signals the expert has received during the lifetime.

We also emphasize that the functional we build is \emph{not} conditional probability. Namely, in our axioms we do not assume that experts are Bayesian.
Our approach should not be confused with the well-known Cox--Jaynes interpretation \cite{Co1946,Ja2003}. The purpose of that interpretation is to describe 
a minimum set of philosophically sound axioms guaranteeing that a \emph{single} expert's thinking can be described in terms of conditional probabilities. 
Whereas we introduce a minimum set of axioms that allows us to relate the experts in $\bm E$, their raw information obtained directly from the external world,
and their probabilities of $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$. After that we can consider our group of experts as a whole, i.e. as a finite pool 
of signals relevant to~$\bm\omega$. In addition to the existence of a set~$\bm\Gamma$ and a functional over $2^{\bm\Gamma}$, our axioms imply that if 
a signal is known to an expert in $\bm E$ and lies outside~$\bm\Gamma$, then it is either known to all the experts in $\bm E$ at once, or irrelevant to $\bm\omega$ at all. 

\subsection{On our models}
It may seem that our axiomatics is too general to be useful. But it turns out that relying on it, we can build a substantive theoretical model 
of the system in question. For example, the concept of Nash equilibrium is quite meaningful in this model. 
On the other hand, our axioms provides a convenient basis (see Sections \ref{subsec:pm}--\ref{subsec:voting}) for further reasoning about real prediction markets 
and about how our system can be implemented in practice. 
Thus, in addition to the axioms discussed above, our theory includes 
the following three components.

First, in Section~\ref{subsec:sr_theory} we build a mathematically rigorous theoretical model of a self-resolving prediction market where direct information exchange turns out to be profitable for the experts. The following can be noted about this model.
\begin{itemize}
    \item It contains some assumptions that are common in models of this kind (see, e.g., 
    the model~\cite{FeFoPe2005} described in Section~\ref{subsec:pen_model}), but is based on our axioms and does not require experts to be Bayesian.
    \item It also contains the assumption that an individual expert cannot affect the price by his or her trading actions alone (but he or she can do this through others by influencing them directly with his or her information). Later we will see how to give this property to a real system.
    \item It shows that the desired behavior of experts corresponds to a naturally occurring Nash equilibrium.  
    By such behavior we mean that experts willingly share their information and operate relying specifically on their probabilities of $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$
    (despite the fact that the system \emph{itself} decides how to distribute gains and losses).
\end{itemize}

Second, in Section~\ref{subsec:data} we discuss the detailed data~\cite{Data2019} collected from sports prediction markets,
and in Sections \ref{subsec:mod_prob}--\ref{subsec:mod_util} we describe a data-driven model of how \emph{real} experts behave in conventional prediction markets. 
In Section~\ref{subsec:mod_meets_dat}, we apply an algorithm based on this model to the data and get a value that effectively predict the consensus probability. Such an estimate can play the role of a price that cannot be affected by trading actions of an individual expert. The assumptions of the model under discussion have been themselves derived from the data (see Section~\ref{sec:details}), but at the same time they make perfect sense in terms of modern economic theory. It is also worth noting that 
there is already an example of sporting events appearing~\cite{RoPe2017} in research on a certain collective intelligence and the same technology 
then being successfully applied~\cite{RoLuHa2018} in medicine.

Third, in Section~\ref{subsec:sr_reality} we combine the first and second components. There, in addition to some rigorous definitions and facts, we present not fully mathematically rigorous but quite detailed arguments showing that using our data-driven model of a conventional prediction market and the corresponding algorithm for robust estimation of consensus probability, we can transfer to reality the principles contained in our theoretical model of a self-resolving market. 
Thus, we make a strong case that it is possible to create the desired system. 







\section{Parameters of interest}
This section explains how to introduce three parameters of $(\bm\omega, \bm E)$ which are various forms of the experts' aggregated opinion on plausibility of~$\bm\omega$.












\subsection{Objective beliefs}\label{subsec:obj_bel}
We fix a current time~$t_0$ and attribute to it all the objects introduced below until Section~\ref{subsec:pm}.
\begin{Asmp}[existence axiom]\label{asmp:A0}
   
    Suppose we are in the setting of any model of experts' behavior of those presented in this paper. 
   
   
    We assume that for each expert $n\in\bm E$, there exists a unique value ${\pi_n(\bm\omega) \in [0,1]}$ that is known to $n$ and is referred to
   
   
   
   
    as the expert $n$'s \emph{mental probability} of $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$.
    The expert~$n$'s probability of $\bm\omega \mapsto 0$ exists in the same sense and equals 
    $1-\pi_n(\bm\omega)$.
   
   
   
   
   
\end{Asmp}
We also refer to the values $\pi_n(\bm\omega)$ as
\emph{beliefs}. 
We provide
Assumptions~\ref{asmp:A0_1}, \ref{A1} and~\ref{A1_1}, which 
are partially inspired by~\cite{Wi2009} and
incorporates the idea of the
objectivity of beliefs.
	Informally, we would like to say that beliefs are coherent with probabilities of a physical or algorithmic nature and
	there exist a finite collection of \emph{objectively} true signals such that an expert's mental probability of $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ is determined by those of them that are known to him or her. 
The informal concept of ``an objectively true signal''
suggests some dualism and independence from an expert. We formalize this concept as a propositional variable with a value already assigned to it: this value can be either $0$ or $1$ and cannot be different for different experts.
\begin{Asmp}[basic coherence axiom]\label{asmp:A0_1}
    If we say that a value $p\in [0,1]$ is known to an expert~$n \in \bm E$, then the statement of Assumption~\ref{asmp:A0} is true for $n$ and $\bm\omega[p]$, and we have $\pi_n(\bm\omega[p]) = p$. 
   
   
   
\end{Asmp}
In particular, we have $\pi_n\big(\bm\omega\big[\pi_n(\bm\omega)\big]\big) = \pi_n(\bm\omega)$.


\begin{Asmp}[signals objectivity axiom]\label{A1}
With each expert $n\in\bm E$, we can associate
a finite set $\Gamma_n$ of propositional variables with an assignment $\gamma_n\mathbin{@}\Gamma_n$. 
We assume that $\gamma_n \sim \gamma_m$ for every $n,m\in \bm E$. 
We set ${\bm\Gamma \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \bigcup_{n\in \bm E}\, \Gamma_n}$ and denote by $\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\mathbin{@}\bm\Gamma$ a unique assignment such that 
$\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}} \sim \gamma_n$ for all $n\in\bm E$. 
For any $\Gamma' \subseteq \bm\Gamma$, we can recombine any expert $n\in\bm E$ with the knowledge ${\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\vert\cii{\Gamma'}\mathbin{@}\Gamma'}$
and obtain a new mental probability
$\pi_n(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma')$.
Namely, Assumptions~\ref{asmp:A0} and~\ref{asmp:A0_1} are assumed to remain true for the modified expert~$n$.
In particular, we have
$\pi_n(\bm\omega) = \pi_n(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma_n)$. 
\end{Asmp}
Assumption~\ref{A1} does not suggest the uniqueness of objects introduced in it. Suppose we have some $\dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$ constructed in accordance with Assumption~\ref{A1}. 
Then any $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}\subseteq\dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$ can be endowed with the structure inherited from~$\dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$: we can set 
$$
\widetilde{\Gamma}_n \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \dtilde{\Gamma}_n\cap\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\widetilde{\gamma}_n \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \dtilde{\gamma}_n\vert\cii{\widetilde{\Gamma}_n
   
   
   
$$
and define an expert $n$ recombined with $\Gamma'\subseteq \widetilde{\bm\Gamma}$ within $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}$
as $n$ recombined with $$\Gamma''\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq\Bigl(\dtilde{\Gamma}_n\setminus\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}\Bigr)\cup\Gamma'$$ within $\dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$. We have
$
        \widetilde{\pi}_n(\bm\omega \mid \Gamma') 
    =  
    \dtilde{\pi}_n(\bm\omega \mid \Gamma'').
$
For any $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}$ and $\dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$ connected in such a way, we write $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}\sqsubseteq\dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$.

\begin{Asmp}[beliefs objectivity axiom]\label{A1_1}
The mechanisms $\pi_n(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ in Assumption~\ref{A1} may differ from each other only because of a finite number of the experts' signals that are not included in ${\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\mathbin{@}\bm\Gamma}$. 
Namely, we can choose~$\bm\Gamma$ with the following property. For any $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}$ satisfying Assumption~\ref{A1} and such that $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma} \sqsupseteq \bm\Gamma$, the corresponding mechanisms $\widetilde{\pi}_n(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ do not depend on~$n$: ${\widetilde{\pi}_n(\bm\omega\mid\cdot) = \widetilde{\bm\pi}(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)}$. In particular, we have
a single mechanism ${\bm\pi}(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ over $\bm\Gamma$ itself.
\end{Asmp}



The variables in $\bm\Gamma$ with assigned values represent very basic objective signals without any derivations. In other words, the knowledge $\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\mathbin{@}\bm\Gamma$ is ontological, not epistemological. We have a finite number of signals that binary encode
the experts' empirical experience consisting of outer events. These ``raw'' signals determine the experts' knowledge on $\bm\omega$ as well as how they derive their probabilities from this knowledge. 
In particular, we may assume that the presence or absence of certain ontological signals in an expert's experience determine his or her epistemological language as well as his or her 
type of rationality or irrationality 
(e.g., Bayesian rationality \cite{Co1946,Ja2003}, or rationality based on 
the maximum entropy principle \cite{Wi2009,Wi2011}, 
or irrationality as in \cite{TvKa1974,KaTv1977}, 
and so forth).
The ontological nature of the signals justifies the assumption that they may be considered separately from the experts. 
Assumption~\ref{A1_1} means that by ``scooping out'' such signals, we can come to a situation where all the experts are coherent and any signal outside~$\bm\Gamma$ is common to them or is irrelevant to $\bm\omega$. 
This statement acquires a precise meaning due to the following proposition. 
\begin{Le}\label{lem:irr} If $\dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$ satisfies Assumption~\textup{\ref{A1}} and $\bm\Gamma_0 \sqsubseteq \dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$, then 
the following
statements are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[label = \textup{(st\arabic*)}
    \item\label{st1} 
    For any $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}$ such that 
    $\bm\Gamma_0\sqsubseteq\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}\sqsubseteq\dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$, the mechanisms
    $\widetilde{\pi}_n(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ do not depend on~$n$.
    \item The mechanisms $\dtilde{\pi}_n(\bm\omega\mid\cdot) = \dtilde{\bm\pi}(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ do not depend on~$n$, and for any $R\in \dtilde{\bm\Gamma}\setminus \bm\Gamma_0$, we have
   
        \begin{align}\nonumber
        &\mbox{either}\quad R \in \bigcap_{n\in\bm E}\dtilde{\Gamma}_n &&&\\\label{eq:irr}
        &\mbox{or}\quad \dtilde{\bm\pi}(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma'\cup\{R\})=\dtilde{\bm\pi}(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma') 
        \quad\mbox{for any}\quad \Gamma' \subseteq \dtilde{\bm\Gamma}. &&&
        \end{align}
   
\end{enumerate}
\end{Le}
\begin{proof}
    Suppose~\ref{st1} is fulfilled and there exists $R\in \dtilde{\bm\Gamma}\setminus \bm\Gamma_0$ such that $R\notin\dtilde{\Gamma}_m$ for some $m\in\bm E$ and 
    \eqref{eq:irr} is not fulfilled for some $\Gamma' \subseteq \dtilde{\bm\Gamma}$.
     We also know that there exists an expert $n \in \bm E$ such that $R\in\dtilde{\Gamma}_n$. If $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma} = \dtilde{\bm\Gamma}\setminus\{R\}$, then 
     $\Gamma' \subseteq \widetilde{\bm\Gamma}$ and $\widetilde{\pi}_m(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma') \ne \widetilde{\pi}_n(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma')$. 
     We come to a contradiction. The proof of the reverse implication is even simpler, and we leave it to the reader.
\end{proof}
Since $\bm\Gamma$ satisfies Assumptions~\ref{A1} and~\ref{A1_1}, Proposition~\ref{lem:irr} implies that the value of  $\widetilde{\bm\pi}\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}\bigr)$ is one and the same 
for all $\widetilde{\bm\Gamma}\sqsupseteq \bm\Gamma$.
\begin{Def}\label{def:coll_prob}
We call
$
	\bm p(\bm\omega, \bm E) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\bm\Gamma
$
\emph{the collective probability}.
\end{Def}


\subsection{Conditional probabilities}\label{sec:cond_prob}
\begin{figure}

\tikzstyle{level 1}=[level distance=1.6cm, sibling distance=3cm]
\tikzstyle{level 2}=[level distance=1.9cm, sibling distance=2cm]

\tikzstyle{bag} = [text centered]
\tikzstyle{end} = [circle, minimum width=3pt,fill, inner sep=0pt]

\begin{tikzpicture}[sloped, ,scale=0.8, every node/.style={scale=0.8},
emph/.style={edge from parent/.style={->,draw,very thick}},norm/.style={edge from parent/.style={->,draw,thin}}]
\node[bag] {$\pi^0$}
    child[emph] {
        node[bag] {$\pi^1$}
				child[norm] {
						node[bag] {$\pi^1$}							
						edge from parent 
								node[above] {$s_2 = 1$}
								node[below]  {$1$}
				}
				child {
						node[bag] {$\pi^{1,2}$} 								
						edge from parent         
								node[below] {$0$}
								node[above]  {$s_2 = 0$}
				}											
        edge from parent 
            node[above] {$s_1 = 1$}
            node[below]  {$0$}
    }
    child[norm] {
        node[bag] {$\pi^0$}
				child[norm] {
						node[bag] {$\pi^0$}							
						edge from parent 
								node[above] {$s_2 = 1$}
								node[below]  {$1$}
				}
				child {
						node[bag] {$\pi^2$} 								
						edge from parent         
								node[below] {$0$}
								node[above]  {$s_2 = 0$}
				}											
        edge from parent         
            node[below] {$1$}
            node[above]  {$s_1 = 0$}
    };
		\begin{scope}[xshift=7cm]
			\node[bag] {$\pi^0$}
					child[norm] {
							node[bag] {$\pi^0$}
							child {
									node[bag] {$\pi^1$}							
									edge from parent 
											node[above] {$s_1 = 1$}
											node[below]  {$0$}
							}
							child {
									node[bag] {$\pi^0$} 								
									edge from parent         
											node[below] {$1$}
											node[above]  {$s_1 = 0$}
							}											
							edge from parent 
									node[above] {$s_2 = 1$}
									node[below]  {$1$}
					}
					child[emph] {
							node[bag] {$\pi^2$}							
							child {
									node[bag] {$\pi^{1,2}$}							
									edge from parent 
											node[above] {$s_1 = 1$}
											node[below]  {$0$}
							}
							child[norm] {
									node[bag] {$\pi^2$} 								
									edge from parent         
											node[below] {$1$}
											node[above]  {$s_1 = 0$}
							}																
							edge from parent         
									node[below] {$0$}
									node[above]  {$s_2 = 0$}
					};		
		\end{scope}
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Learning with unexpected signals.}\label{fig:unexp_learn}
\end{figure}



It turns out that Assumptions~\ref{A1} and~\ref{A1_1} 
do not directly contradict a certain variation of the
classical model~\cite{Au1976, PeSa2007, ArBaSm2018} 
of knowledge. Namely, it is always possible to build a probability space over our mechanism $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$. This can be done in a non-unique way and certainly does not mean that the experts are indeed Bayesian (non-Baysian structures may be built over as well). 

We should notice that Assumptions~\ref{A1} and~\ref{A1_1} do not \emph{ex}clude experts who can switch from the extreme probabilities $0$ and $1$, i.e., who can, after receiving a new signal, lose complete confidence in the truth/falsity of the proposition~$\bm\omega$. Such an expert must regard such a signal as impossible.
It follows that we need conditional probabilities where conditions are of zero probability: we cannot avoid 
the extended Kol\-mo\-go\-rov--R\'e\-nyi axiomatics \cite{Re1955,Re1956} in the considerations below. 


Let $\bm\Delta \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \{\bm\omega\} \cup \bm\Gamma$. We consider the set $D$ of all possible 
assignments $\delta\mathbin{@} \bm\Delta$ as a sample space and put $\mathfrak{D}\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq 2^{D}$.
Any assignment $\delta'\mathbin{@}\Delta'$ to any subset $\Delta'\subseteq\bm\Delta$ can be associated 
with the event $\{\delta \in D\mid \delta\sim \delta'\} \in \mathfrak{D}$. 
This applies to
the assignment $\bm \omega \mapsto 1$ as well as to any assignment $\gamma' \mathbin{@} \Gamma'$ for any $\Gamma'\subseteq\bm\Gamma$ 
(in particular, to $\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\vert\cii{\Gamma'}$). 
We introduce the subset $\mathfrak{G} \subset \mathfrak{D}$ of all the events associated with 
all such $\gamma'$. 
\begin{Le}\label{lem:interpret}
Let $\bm\Gamma$, $\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\mathbin{@}\bm\Gamma$, and $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ be as in Assumptions~\textup{\ref{A1}} and~\textup{\ref{A1_1}}. Then there exists 
a Kol\-mo\-go\-rov--R\'e\-nyi conditional probability measure~$P(\cdot\,|\,\cdot)$ on $\mathfrak{D}\times\mathfrak{G}$ 
such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:interpret}
\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma')
= P\big(\bm\omega \mapsto 1 \;\big|\; \bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\vert\cii{\Gamma'}\big)
\end{equation}
for any $\Gamma'\subseteq\bm\Gamma$.\footnote{The subset $\mathfrak{G}$ is \emph{not} an algebra, and this fact reflects the ontological nature of the signals under consideration. For example, we do not consider a disjunction of signals as legitimate objective information: we either reliably know a signal, or have not received it at all.} 
\end{Le}
\begin{proof}
Considering~$\bm\Gamma$ is the same as considering the space $S \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq S_1\times\dots\times S_d$ of signals, 
where $S_i \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \{0,1\}$ and the dimension~$d$ coincides with the number of variables in $\bm\Gamma$. Considering assignments $\delta\mathbin{@}\bm\Delta$ 
is the same as considering vectors $(\omega, s_1, \dots,s_d) \in \Omega\times S$.
When we receive signals $s_i \in S_i$ in a certain order, we descend a binary learning tree with conditional probabilities of $\omega = 1$ in its nodes.
There are $d!$ of such trees, and in each tree, condition~\eqref{eq:interpret} determines probabilities along the path that corresponds to a posteriori knowledge $\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\mathbin{@}\bm\Gamma$. We additionally assume that the probability of $\omega=1$ changes only if we receive signals that are consistent 
with $\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}$, and that such signals are always unexpected 
(i.e., has zero probability independently of signals received before). 
Then the trees becomes martingales.
Figure~\ref{fig:unexp_learn} shows a situation where $d=2$ and the knowledge~$\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}$ corresponds to the signals 
$s_1 = 1$ and $s_2 = 0$. By $\pi^0$, $\pi^1$, $\pi^2$ and $\pi^{1,2}$ we denote all the possible values of $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ 
(when we know nothing, know one of the signals, and know both signals, respectively).
Finally, it is not hard to see that the resulting martingales are generated by one and the same Kol\-mo\-go\-rov--R\'e\-nyi conditional probability space that can be restored from them.
 \end{proof}

We note that a suitable measure $P(\cdot\,|\,\cdot)$ is not necessarily unique. 
In particular, a plausible conjecture is that if $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ does not allow to change zero/one probabilities, then we can slightly perturb our extreme martingales and get into the classical Kolmogorov axiomatics. On the other hand, the above degenerate non-informative measure has a direct physical meaning in a situation where the world~$\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}\mathbin{@}\bm\Gamma$ represents a collection of true propositions of the form 
``$X_i$ has taken the value $x_i$'', where $X_i$ behaves as a continuous random variable. Such an example shows that, in fact, it is \emph{not} counterintuitive to assign zero prior probabilities to propositions being realized, and the probability one to their negations. 

In the example with continuous variables, the randomness fully appears at the stage where the propositional language is generated. An opposite situation is where propositional variables in~$\bm\Gamma$ are given in advance and we model the randomness by considering various worlds 
$\gamma\mathbin{@}\bm\Gamma$ (see, e.g., Section~\ref{subsec:pen_model}). Suppose we also introduce a mechanism ${\Pi\colon \mathfrak{G} \to [0,1]}$ that generates a mental probability from any piece of information about any of the possible worlds. It is easy to see that a strong Bayesian rationality of experts is required
in order that $\Pi$ may be expressed through a conditional probability measure (similar questions are raised in \cite{Co1946, Ja2003}). We need \emph{no} restrictions of this kind in most of our main considerations of Sections~\ref{subsec:sr_theory} and~\ref{sec:model}.



















\subsection{Prediction market}\label{subsec:pm}
\begin{wraptable}{r}[0pt]{0.35\linewidth}
\centering
\caption{Market state.}\label{PSState}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccc@{}}
\toprule[1.0pt]
Demand           &          & Supply           \\ \midrule
$S_t^+(q_1)$     & $\ge$    & $0$              \\
$\vdots$         & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$         \\
$S_t^+(q_j)$     & $\ge$    & $0$              \\ \midrule
$S_t^+(q_{j+1})$ & $\ge$    & $S_t^-(q_{j+1})$ \\
$\vdots$         & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$         \\ \midrule
$S_t^+(q_t^-)$   & $>$      & $S_t^-(q_t^-)$   \\ \midrule
$\vdots$         & $=$      & $\vdots$         \\ \midrule
$S_t^+(q_t^+)$   & $<$      & $S_t^-(q_t^+)$   \\ \midrule
$\vdots$         & $\le$    & $\vdots$         \\ \midrule
$0$              & $\le$    & $\vdots$         \\
$\vdots$         & $\vdots$ & $\vdots$         \\
$0$              & $\le$    & $\vdots$         \\ \bottomrule[1.0pt]
\end{tabular}
\end{wraptable}
For operationalization, we consider a prediction market with real or play money: first, it gives experts incentives to reveal their probabilities;
second, it weighs experts' probabilities; and third, it enables information exchange and, therefore, information aggregation.
We use the following terminology (see, e.g.,~\cite{Ma2006}).
\begin{Def} 
\emph{A contract} on $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ is the obligation that can be sold by one expert to another and that binds a seller to pay 
a buyer $1$~unit once it is revealed that $\bm\omega$ is true.
\end{Def}
The following method for elicitation of experts' probabilities goes back to de Finetti~\cite{deFi1937trans}. 
We ask an expert $n\in\bm{E}$: what is the maximum price of one contract on $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ at which he or she would agree to buy $S$ contracts? It is easy to see that the expert's answer tends 
to $\pi_n(\bm\omega)$ as $S\to 0$, provided his or her preferences are determined by $\pi_n(\bm\omega)$ and a von Neumann--Morgenstern utility function (see, e.g., the discussion in~\cite{KaWi1988}). On the other hand, the impact of utilities such as~\eqref{eq:drp} does not depend on~$S$ and cannot be eliminated from the answer to de Finetti's question in such a way.
This is one reason why we do not consider de Finetti's approach as a basic definition of mental probabilities. 
Nevertheless, we can see the connection between them and the notion of a contract.

Suppose the experts freely trade contracts with each other.
\begin{Def}\label{def:CDA}
\emph{A prediction market} for~$\bm\omega$
is a sequence 
of \emph{orders} $o_t = (s, q, n)^{\pm}$ where $t$ 
runs over a finite subset of $[t_0,+\infty)$. Each order means that at time~$t$, an expert $n\in\bm E$ claims that he or she is 
ready to buy (for orders with~$+$) or to sell (for orders with~$-$) $s > 0$ contracts on $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ 
by a price $q \in (0,1)$.
\end{Def}
We assume that orders are matched with each other in real time by natural rules, i.e. that our prediction market is arranged as 
\emph{a continuous double auction} (CDA). We skip the details of these rules, but note that 

at a moment $t>t_0$ we will see 
a situation shown in Table~\ref{PSState}. Here 
$$0< q_1 < \dots < q_j < q_{j+1}<\dots<q_t^-<\dots<q_t^+ <\dots<1$$
are all the prices with non-zero total demand $S_t^+(q)$ or total supply $S_t^-(q)$ of contracts at time~$t$. For any of these prices, the number of concluded transactions and the number of contracts available for immediate selling or buying, are
$$
\min\big(S_t^+(q), S_t^-(q)\big)\quad\mbox{and}\quad\big|S_t^+(q)-S_t^-(q)\big|,
$$
respectively. An expert may withdraw any portion of his or her offer that has not been matched yet.
The bid price~$q_t^-$ is the best price for immediate selling at time~$t$: it is the highest price where demand is greater than supply. 
The ask price~$q_t^+$ is the best price for immediate buying at time~$t$: it is the lowest price where supply is greater than demand.
By $q^c_t$ we denote the current clearing price: the price of the last concluded transaction.
\subsection{Beliefs in a prediction market
As a basis for further considerations, we consider a purely hypothetical, but imaginable experiment where all the experts in~$\bm E$ participate in a time-\emph{un}limited prediction market and where they are isolated from external signals 
(i.e., they receive information only from each other, e.g., via the market). 
The isolation of $\bm E$ can be formalized as the constancy of the collective probability in the course of the experiment. 
\begin{Asmp}[prediction market pre-model]\label{asmp:A2}
There is the possibility of an experiment satisfying the following conditions.
\begin{enumerate
\item\label{A2}
At the moment~$t_0$, all the experts in~$\bm E$ are given the opportunity 
to participate in a CDA-type prediction market for~$\bm\omega$, and they know about that. 
\item\label{A2_1} 
At each moment $t\ge t_0$ of the experiment, we get into Assumptions~\ref{A1} and~\ref{A1_1}: 
there are raw information $\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}^t\mathbin{@}\bm\Gamma^t$, the experts' probabilities $\pi_n^t(\bm\omega)$, 
and a single mechanism $\bm\pi^t(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$
over $\bm\Gamma^t$ 
that generates them. 
We assume that if $t_1<t_2$, then $\Gamma_n^{t_1}\subseteq\Gamma_n^{t_2}$
and $\bm\pi^{t_1}(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma') = \bm\pi^{t_2}(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma')$ for any $n\in\bm E$ and any $\Gamma'\subseteq\bm\Gamma^{t_1}$.
\item\label{A2_2} 
The collective probabilities do not vary throughout the experiment: 
$$\bm\pi^{t}(\bm\omega\mid\bm\Gamma^t) = \bm\pi^{t_0}(\bm\omega\mid\bm\Gamma^{t_0}) = \bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E).$$
\item\label{A2_3} 
There is a moment~$t_\infty > t_0$ when the last transaction is concluded: no orders are matched 
with each other during $(t_\infty, t_\infty+\Delta]$, where 
$\Delta$ is a sufficiently large pre-announced timeout. We complete the experiment at $t_\infty+\Delta$ and, after that, distribute awards once 
we know the value of~$\bm\omega$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Asmp}
We refer to the market from Assumption~\ref{asmp:A2} as \emph{the unlimited market}. 
\begin{Def}\label{qDef} We call the price $\bm q(\bm\omega,\bm E) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq q^{c}_{t_\infty}$
of the last concluded transaction in the unlimited market
\emph{the ultimate price}.
\end{Def} 



\subsection{Trading as weighted voting}\label{subsec:voting}
Consider the total risks 
$$
V^+_t(q) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq qS^+_t(q)\quad\mbox{and}\quad V^-_t(q) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq (1-q)S^-_t(q) 
$$
for prices $q\in (0,1)$ and times $t>t_0$ (see Table~\ref{PSState}). We call units constituting these quantities 
\emph{votes for} $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ and \emph{votes for} $\bm\omega\mapsto 0$, respectively. 
Due to discrete nature of any operations with real or play money in any real or imaginable market, we can normalize $V^+_t(q)$ and $V^-_t(q)$ in such a way that 
they
will become integers and each vote will correspond to a single expert who has placed it.
Let $\mathcal{V}_t$ be the set of size $\sum_{q \in (0,1)} \big(V^+_{t}(q)+V^-_{t}(q)\big)$ of all the votes at time~$t$.
We note that since the experts may withdraw non-matched votes, 
it is possible that $\mathcal{V}_{t_1} \nsubseteq \mathcal{V}_{t_2}$ for $t_1 < t_2$.
Suppose we are in the setting of the unlimited market from Assumption~\ref{asmp:A2}. Let $t\in[t_0, t_\infty]$. 

We can assign to each vote $v \in\mathcal{V}_{t}$ the belief $\pi_v = \pi_n^{\tau}(\bm\omega)$ with which 
the corresponding expert $n\in\bm E$ has placed it at time~$\tau\in [t_0,t]$.
\begin{Def}\label{muDef}
We call
$
	\bm\mu(\bm\omega, \bm E) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \med\{\pi_v\}_{v \in\mathcal{V}_{t_\infty}}
$
\emph{the market-driven median} of beliefs.
\end{Def}
The market-driven median weighs the experts' beliefs and takes into account information exchange between them.




\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:hyp}
This section contains a preliminary discussion concerning the hypothesis that for any $n\in\bm{E}$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hyp}
\pi_n^{t_\infty}(\bm\omega) = \bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E) = \bm q(\bm\omega,\bm E) = \bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E).
\end{equation}
At the end of the section, we provide a theoretical model of a self-resolving prediction market with direct information exchange.

\subsection{General remarks}\label{subsec:gen_rem}
First, we announce that in Section~\ref{sec:model} we build a model that allows us to elicit estimates 
$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ of $\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ from real market data accumulated during intervals $[t_0,t]$. Inter alia, the model has a parameter~$\sigma_t$
that measures how beliefs~$\pi_v$, $v \in\mathcal{V}_t$, fluctuate on $[t_0, t]$. The estimates~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ quickly stabilize (become almost constant), while the estimates $\hat\sigma_t$ decrease.

Second, we note that the announced model
implicitly implies that if we consider~$\pi_v$ for $v \in \mathcal{V}_{t_\infty}$ as time series, then $\pi_v$ and $q^c_t$ will stop fluctuating simultaneously at the same level $\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E) = \bm q(\bm\omega,\bm E)$.
We may assume that after this moment, the experts will have identical beliefs that will remain stable under information exchange. 
The question of the coincidence between this stable shared belief and $\bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ requires a separate discussion.

Third, we make general remarks on how information exchange relates to the fluctuations of $\pi_v$. 
We provide a slight variation of an example from~\cite{PlSu1988} that shows
why the immutability of $\pi_v$ is a more substantial condition than the sameness 
of $\pi_n^t(\bm\omega)$ at a fixed time $t\ge t_0$. 
Consider an event with three mutually exclusive outcomes $x$, $y$, and $z$. 
Let $\bm\omega$ be the proposition that $x$ has been realized. Suppose a random half of the experts know that $y$ has \emph{not} been realized and the other half know that $z$ has \emph{not} been realized.
All the experts also know that a random half of them observe the realization of~$y$ and the other half observe the realization of~$z$.
If the experts reckon with the principle of indifference, they will have identical initial 
probabilities $\pi_n^{t_0}(\bm\omega) = 1/2$, $n\in\bm E$. On the other hand, if they generate a prediction market and are sophisticated enough to judge about others' probabilities by watching it, then $\pi_v$ will change toward~$1$. 
The model~\cite{FeFoPe2005} is one way to formally describe how $\pi_v$ cease to fluctuate 
in a prediction market, in particular in the $xyz$-ex\-am\-ple. 
We briefly discuss this model in Section~\ref{subsec:pen_model}.

Fourth, we demonstrate that the median $\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ is a better choice than the mean 
of~$\pi_v$. Suppose there is an expert who has understood that $\bm\omega$ is true and, therefore, is ready to spend his or her entire budget on contracts on the truth of~$\bm\omega$, buying them at any price $q < 1$. If he or she buys contracts at a price $q>0.5$ from another expert, then such a transaction will generate $V^+$ votes associated with the probability $\pi_1 = 1$ and $V^- < V^+$ votes associated with the probability $\pi_2 < 1$. Therefore, the median of 
the corresponding probabilities $\pi_v$ will be equal to $1$, while the mean will not.


Fifth, by~$f$ we denote various static aggregation schemes that take as arguments 
only the initial probabilities $\big\{\pi_n^{t_0}(\bm\omega)\big\}_{n\in\bm E}$ 
(without involving external weights or information exchange between the experts). 
There is an extensive literature on the choice of~$f$ in various situations. See, e.g., the survey~\cite{ClWi2007} or the recent article~\cite{ArBaSm2018}.
We make general comments on the comparison of $\hat{\bm\mu}_t$, $q_t^c$, and static schemes~$f$ 
as ways to approximate $\bm p(\bm\omega, \bm E)$. The prices~$q_t^c$ oscillate because of the fluctuations of $\pi_v$, while 
the estimates~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ remove, like any averaging, these fluctuations. On the other hand, in contradistinction to static averages~$f$, the estimates~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ take into account information exchange between the experts: they may work in situations like the $xyz$-ex\-am\-ple, where any~$f$ returns nothing better than~$1/2$. Thus, the estimates~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ combine the advantages of $q_t^c$ and $f$.\footnote{Also recall that we do not consider 
the direct elicitation of the beliefs $\{\pi_n^{t_0}(\bm\omega)\}_{n\in\bm E}$ 
as operational.} 



 

\subsection{Theoretical arguments: a Boolean market model}\label{subsec:pen_model}
Here we discuss the prediction market model from~\cite{FeFoPe2005} (see also the survey~\cite{PeSa2007}). Following the authors, we consider the information structure 
$\Omega\times S = \Omega \times S_1 \times \cdots \times S_N$, $S_n \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \{0,1\}$, and bit 
arrays $(\omega,s) = (\omega, s_1,\dots,s_N)\in \Omega\times S$. This is the same as to consider 
a set $\{\bm\omega\} \cup \bm\Gamma$ consisting of
$N+1$ propositional variables, with 
assignments to them.
\begin{Asmp}[the model of Feigenbaum et al.]\label{asmp:FFPS}\leavevmode
\begin{enumerate
\item\label{it:FFPS_first}
A vector $r = (r_1,\dots,r_N)\in S$ is the real state of the world ($\bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}$ in our notation), and each expert $n\in\bm E = \{1,\dots,N\}$ privy to one bit $r_n \in S_n$ of information. 
\item\label{it:FFPS_second} The experts' probabilities of $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$ 
are generated by a probability measure~$P$ over $2^{\Omega\times S}$ such that $P(s = r) \ne 0$ (the world~$r$ is \emph{not un}expected).

\item
There is a prediction market that proceeds in rounds. The clearing price is publicly revealed after each round, and it turns out to be the mean of the experts' beliefs before the round.
\item
Such means are the only information channel between the experts.
\item\label{it:FFPS_last} All of the above is common knowledge (including the structure $\Omega\times S$ and the measure~$P$).
\end{enumerate}
\end{Asmp}
These assumptions mean that
the information exchange between the experts is described exclusively in terms of the initial information structure~$S$ and the measure~$P$.
By $\pi^k_n(\bm\omega)$ and $q_k^c$ we denote the experts' beliefs before the $k$-th round and the clearing price after it, respectively. 
We have 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:q_is_mean}
    q_k^c = \mean\big\{\pi_n^k(\bm\omega)\big\}_{n\in\bm E}.
\end{equation}
We note that assumption~\eqref{eq:q_is_mean} means that the price $q_k^c$ combines information exchange with averaging, which is more than can be said for 
the price~$q^{c}_t$ in a real prediction market (see Section~\ref{sec:model}).

By $I^k$ we denote the public information accumulated by the market for the first $k-1$ rounds:
$$
	I^1 \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \{s \in S\mid P(\Omega\times\{s\})\ne 0\},
	\quad I^{k+1} \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \{s \in I^{k}\mid q_{k}^c(s) = q_k^c \}.
$$
where $q_k^c(s)$ are the prices in a world~$s$ (in particular, $q_k^c=q_k^c(r)$).
The information of an expert~$n$ before the $k$-th round is $$I^k_n \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \{s \in I^k\mid s_n = {r}_n\},$$ and we have
$
\pi^k_n(\bm\omega) = P\bigl(\omega=1 \bigm| s \in I^{k}_n\bigr).
$
Since $I^1 \supseteq I^2 \supseteq \cdots$, there exists a moment~$k_\infty$ when the information stops accumulating: 
$I^{k_\infty} = I^{k_\infty + 1} = \cdots$. In~\cite{FeFoPe2005}, the authors notice that the results of~\cite{NiBrGe1990} immediately imply that at $k_\infty$ 
each expert's belief $\pi^{k_\infty}_n(\bm\omega)$ turns out to be independent of his or her own private information and
all the beliefs stabilize at one point. 
Namely, for all $n \in \bm E$ we have two identities
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final_state}
	\pi^{k_\infty}_n(\bm\omega) 

	= q_{k_\infty}^c = P\big(\omega = 1 \mid s \in I^{k_\infty}\big).
\end{equation}
It is worth noting that \cite{NiBrGe1990}, in its turn, extends the line of research started 
in~\cite{Au1976}. 


We also formulate the following obvious fact (it is needed in Section~\ref{subsec:mod_meets_dat}).
\begin{Fact}\label{rem:d_less_N}
Consider a situation where the dimension~$d$ of $S$ is strictly less than~$N$: 
$d$~experts privy to $d$ bits of $r\in S$ \textup{(}as in~\textup{\ref{it:FFPS_first}} 
from Assumption~\textup{\ref{asmp:FFPS})}, while additional $N-d$ experts know no bits at all. We suppose \textup{\ref{it:FFPS_second}--\ref{it:FFPS_last}} from Assumption~\textup{\ref{asmp:FFPS}} remain fulfilled for all $N$ experts \textup{(}in particular, both~$N$ and~$d$ are assumed to be common knowledge\textup{)}. Under these conditions,
relation~\eqref{eq:final_state} remains valid and we can shorten~\eqref{eq:final_state} by dropping the second identity: it becomes a part of the first.
\end{Fact}

We can formalize the $xyz$-ex\-am\-ple from Section~\ref{subsec:gen_rem} as follows.
\begin{Ex}\label{ex:xyz}
Suppose $S=S_1\times S_2$,
$r= (0,0)$, and 
$$
P\big(\big\{(1,0,0)\big\}\big) = P\big(\big\{(0,1,0)\big\}\big) = P\big(\big\{(0,0,1)\big\}\big) = \tfrac{1}{3}.
$$
Then we have $k_\infty=2$, $I^2 = \{r\}$, and $q_{2}^c = 1$.
\end{Ex}
Following~\cite{FeFoPe2005,PeSa2007}, we generalize this example by complementing Assumption~\ref{asmp:FFPS} with the assumption 
that the experts believe they can completely restore~$\omega$ from~${s\in S}$.
   
\begin{Asmp}[the model of Feigenbaum et al.]
   
    We have $P(\omega = g(s))=1$, where $g \colon S \to \{0,1\}$ is a given Boolean function. 
\end{Asmp}
    In particular, $\bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E) = g(r)$ (an omniscient expert is sure of the answer). 
The main result of~\cite{FeFoPe2005} is a necessary and sufficient condition on $g$ that guarantees the identity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:q_eq_b}
q_{k_\infty}^c = g(r)
\end{equation} 
for any~$P$ and any $r \in I^1$: there must exist weights $w_0,\dots, w_N \in \mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:threshold}
g(s) = 1\quad\mbox{iff}\quad w_0 + \sum_{n=1}^N w_n s_n \ge 1.
\end{equation}
We can see a connection between hypothesis~\eqref{eq:hyp} and relations~\eqref{eq:final_state} and~\eqref{eq:q_eq_b}. 


The existence of functions not satisfying~\eqref{eq:threshold} is not a problem in itself: the measure~$P$ must, in addition, satisfy rather special conditions in order for identity~\eqref{eq:q_eq_b} to be false. 
For example, if $\bm E$ consists of two experts and $g$ is the XOR function, 
then we have the following proposition (it would also be desirable to obtain its extension to the general case).
\begin{Le}\label{rem:cond_of_failure}
Let $S=S_1\times S_2$
and $g(s) = s_1 \oplus s_2$. 
If we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cond_of_failure}
	P(s_n =1) = \tfrac{1}{2},\quad n=1,2,
\end{equation}
then $k_\infty = 1$.
Otherwise, we have~\eqref{eq:q_eq_b}.
\end{Le}
\begin{proof}
We denote $P_{ij}\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq P(s=(i,j))$. 
Under the condition
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cond2_xor_proof}
P_{ij}+P_{i'j'}\ne0\quad\mbox{for}\quad(i,j)\ne(i',j'),   
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{align*}

\mbox{\eqref{eq:cond_of_failure} holds
\Leftrightarrow
\begin{cases}
P_{10}=P_{01};\\
P_{00}=P_{11};\\
\end{cases}
\!\!\!\!\Leftrightarrow
\begin{cases}
P_{10}P_{00}=P_{01}P_{11};\\
P_{01}P_{00}=P_{10}P_{11};\\
\end{cases}
\\
&\Leftrightarrow
\begin{cases}
\frac{P_{01}}{P_{01}+P_{00}} = \frac{P_{10}}{P_{10}+P_{11}};\\
\frac{P_{10}}{P_{10}+P_{00}} = \frac{P_{01}}{P_{01}+P_{11}};\\
\end{cases}
\!\!\!\!\Leftrightarrow
\begin{cases}
P(s_2=1 \mid s_1 = 0)=P(s_2=0 \mid s_1=1);\\
P(s_1=0 \mid s_2 = 1)=P(s_1=1 \mid s_2=0);\\
\end{cases}
\\[8pt]
&\Leftrightarrow
\;P(g(s)=1 \mid s_n = 0)=P(g(s)=1 \mid s_n=1),\quad n=1,2
\end{align*}
This implies that if \eqref{eq:cond_of_failure} and \eqref{eq:cond2_xor_proof} hold, then $k_\infty = 1$, and that 
if \eqref{eq:cond_of_failure} does not hold and \eqref{eq:cond2_xor_proof} holds, then~\eqref{eq:q_eq_b} holds.
If \eqref{eq:cond_of_failure} holds and \eqref{eq:cond2_xor_proof} does not, 
then $P_{10}+P_{01}= 0$ or $P_{11}+P_{00}=0$ (because the other four relations in~\eqref{eq:cond2_xor_proof} follows from~\eqref{eq:cond_of_failure}) and we have $k_\infty = 1$.
Any violation of \eqref{eq:cond2_xor_proof} implies~\eqref{eq:q_eq_b}, and we have that if \eqref{eq:cond_of_failure} and \eqref{eq:cond2_xor_proof} 
does not hold, then \eqref{eq:q_eq_b} hold.
\end{proof}










\subsection{Empirical evidence}\label{subsec:emp_evid}
There is a crude (but supported by a vast amount of data) argument in favor of the hypothesis
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pq}
\bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E)=\bm q(\bm\omega,\bm E).
\end{equation}
Namely, there are many studies revealing the fact that last observed prices in prediction markets are well-calibrated (but with certain reservations; see, e.g., \cite{PaCl2013}). 
We refer to the articles \cite{PeLaGi2001, SeWo2004, RoNo2006} that confirm this fact both for prediction markets with real money and with play money. However the calibration only indirectly related to the hypothesis in question: even if we reasonably suppose that $\bm p$ 
and $\bm q$ are both well-calibrated (i.e. that $\bm q$ is not worse than the last observed price and $\bm p$ is not worse than $\bm q$), this will not imply the identity between them. Concerning calibration and refinement (a more subtle measure of forecast accuracy), 
see~\cite{DeGrFi1982} or an exposition in~\cite[\nopp Section~10.4]{PaIn2009}. 

In order to provide a direct empirical verification of the hypothesis, we need to be able to directly calculate~$\bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E)$. This is partly possible only in a controlled experiment where we regulate (to some extent) the initial information of each expert. 
An interesting example is the study~\cite{AlKiPf2009} (see also the classic studies \cite{PlSu1988, FoLu1990}), where the authors also support the idea of utilizing play-money prediction markets in the life sciences. Their experiment simulates the search for an answer to a scientific question (in what order three genes activate each other). There are differences from our setting: experts trade contracts of six types that correspond to six mutually exclusive outcomes $\Omega = \{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_6\}$, an automated market maker is used (see~\cite{Ha2007}), and new external information is revealed to experts in the course of trading (that means that the collective probabilities vary). Nevertheless, these differences do not reduce the importance of the discussed experiment to us. 
We briefly describe the situations that have been modeled in the course of it.

\begin{Sett}[the initial information on~$\Omega$ is public from the outset]
We note that even in an experiment where the information is under control, it is impossible to make all $\gamma_n \mathbin{@} \Gamma_n$ identical. 
In addition to direct information on~$\Omega$, each $\gamma_n$ contains personal signals that determine how the corresponding expert processes such information. This explains why in~\cite{AlKiPf2009}, the prices have oscillated even in the public setting. Nevertheless, in such a setting the prices have become close to the collective probabilities that means that prediction markets at least do not ``lose'' public information.
\end{Sett}

\begin{Sett}[the information of each expert is private and is transmitted to others through the prices only]\label{sett:priv} Six experimental markets have been organized in the private setting. In half the cases, the markets have succeeded to aggregate information: the results do not contradict hypothesis~\eqref{eq:pq}. In three remaining markets the prices have not converged to the collective probabilities: better approximations have been obtained by deriving theoretical beliefs from the initial private information of each expert and by averaging them. It is reasonable to assume that estimates of the corresponding market-driven medians could give better results, provided we could elicit them from the market data.
\end{Sett}

\begin{Sett}[the information of each expert is initially private, but becomes public after a while: direct information exchange is simulated] 
All six corresponding markets have succeeded to aggregate information in such a setting. The results are almost the same as in the public setting. 
\end{Sett}

Thus, we have empirical evidence that prediction market prices are able to aggregate information, but may fail to do so if they are the only information channel between the experts. As might be expected, direct information exchange can greatly improve the reliability of prediction markets. 




\subsection{Self-resolving mechanism with direct information exchange}\label{subsec:sr_theory}
In addition to the possibility of broken information exchange, there are the following two problems. 
First, we must reliably know the value of $\bm\omega$ in order to resolve our market and to distribute gains and losses. This severely restricts the applicability of prediction markets. Second, consider an external ignorant observer who does not know the nature of experts' information (in terms of the model discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:pen_model}, he or she 
does not know $(\Omega\times S, 2^{\Omega\times S}, P)$). Then he or she sees prices, but cannot obtain the information that generates them: results are not interpretable.
Here we present a theoretical model that incorporates the idea that all these problems can (and should) be solved simultaneously. The model does not require the experts to be Bayesian. 
The practical implementation of the self-resolving approach is discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:sr_reality}.



\begin{Asmp}[a theoretical model of an interpretable self-resolving market]\label{asmp:SRM}\leavevmode
\begin{enumerate
    \item\label{srm_it1} We are within Assumptions~\ref{A1} and~\ref{A1_1}, 
    and there is a non-empty set $e_1 \subseteq \bm E$ of experts with only common or irrelevant signals: 
    if $n\in e_1$, then
    $$\Gamma_n = \Gamma^1 \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \varnothing.$$
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    Initially, we have a prediction market where only the experts from~$e_1$ participate. 
    \item\label{srm_it3} At the beginning of each round $k$, the current participants from $e_{k}$ trade for a period of time and come to a price~$q^c_k$ known to the all experts. 
   
   
   
    \item\label{srm_it4} After that, a new expert $n_k\in\bm E\setminus e_k$ may join to $e_k$
   
    by making a transaction at the price~$q^c_k$: he or she may choose whether to buy or to sell contracts.
    After that, the expert may either
    share \emph{all} his or her private information with the other experts in~$\bm E$, or remain completely silent.
    The next round begins with $e_{k+1} = e_k\cup\{n_k\}$.
    If an expert shares the information, then other experts consider this information as complete and do not take his or her further behavior into account.
    Namely,
    if during rounds $j=1,\dots,k$ each joining expert~$n_j$ chooses to share the information, 
   
    then we will remain within the same set $\bm\Gamma$ and the same mechanism $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ over it, the public information
    will be updated as $\Gamma^{j+1} = \Gamma^{j} \cup \Gamma_{n_j}$ and the individual information of 
    each $n\in\bm E$ will be determined as
    $\Gamma_n^j = \Gamma^{j} \cup \Gamma_n$.
    
   
   
    
    
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
        
    \item Since $\bm E$ is finite, there exists a final round~$k_\infty$ 
    when no one wishes to join~$e_{k_\infty}$. After $k_\infty$, we resolve the market (distribute gains and losses) in accordance with 
    $\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]$.
    
    \item\label{srm_it5} All the experts are myopic and risk neutral in the following sense:
    \begin{itemize}
        \item any expert $n\in\bm E$ 
does not consider the situation where someone outside $e_k\cup\{n\}$ participates in the market (if someone else joins~$e_k$, this attitude is instantly carried over to $e_{k+1}\cup\{n\}$, and so forth);
        \item immediately after the expert~$n_k$ joins to $e_k$,
        (at the beginning of the round $k+1$),
       
       
       
        his or her
        expected profit on the joining transaction is \emph{strictly} greater than zero, provided $n_k$ believes\footnote{Hereinafter, the word ``believes'' means ``takes for granted in the further logical inference''.} that $q^c_{k_\infty}$ equals a certain value known to him or her:
        \begin{equation}\label{eq:ex_pr}
           \pm\Bigl(\pi_{n_k}\big(\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]\big) - q_k^c\Bigr) s^{\pm} >0.
        \end{equation}
        Here the sign~$\pm$ depends on whether $n_k$ has bought or sold contracts, and $s^\pm$ is 
        their quantity. Due to Assumption~\ref{asmp:A0_1}, the probability in~\eqref{eq:ex_pr} exists and equals
        the value the expert believes $q^c_{k_\infty}$ coincides with;
       
       
        \item no one wishes to join $e_k$ if and only if
        any expert ${n\in\bm E\setminus e_{k}}$
        would break the above condition by doing this. 
       
    \end{itemize}   
    \item\label{srm_it6} If during
    stage~\ref{srm_it3} of a round~$k$,
    all the experts $n\in e_k$ believes they know the value of~$q^c_{k_\infty}$ and
    their versions
    $\pi_n\big(\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]\big)$
   
    coincide with each other and do not vary with time, then $q^c_k$ will coincide with them.
    


    
   
   
    
   
\end{enumerate}
\end{Asmp}
As we will see in Section~\ref{subsec:sr_reality},
the price~$q^c_k$ introduced in~\ref{srm_it3} may be interpreted
simultaneously as a representation of a pair~$q_t^\pm$ with a small spread
and as an
analogue of~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$.

Concerning~\ref{srm_it4}, we note that in reality it is not always possible for an expert to generate for others an exact copy
of his or her ontological raw signals. For example, ``the proposition $R$ is true'' and ``it is true that the expert~$n$ claims
that $R$ is true'' are different signals. Moreover, an expert may intentionally
generate signals that do not correlate with his or her knowledge at all. 
Nevertheless, in this section we show that under certain conditions, fully and accurately disclosing an expert's own information
is at least preferable for him or her to being totally silent, and in Section~\ref{subsec:sr_reality} we discuss
the real situation in its entirety. 

Concerning~\ref{srm_it5}, we note that
the myopia assumption is natural in a context where an expert~$n$ knows nothing about those who are outside $e_k\cup\{n\}$ (even about their existence). 
Certain forms of myopia and risk neutrality are also featured in \cite{FeFoPe2005,PeSa2007}.


\begin{Def}
We say that the market in Assumption~\ref{asmp:SRM} is \emph{efficient} if the following holds during all the rounds $k = 1,\dots,k_\infty$.
\begin{enumerate}[label = \textup{(eff\arabic*)}]
    \item\label{it:eff1} At stage~\ref{srm_it4},
    the
    joining expert~$n_k$ always chooses to share all his or her information.
    \item\label{it:eff2} All the experts
    rely in their actions on their mental probabilities of $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$. Namely, we have that
    \begin{itemize}
       
        \item during stage~\ref{srm_it3},
        the experts $n\in e_k$ believe they know $q^c_{k_\infty}$ and
        the probabilities~$\pi_n\big(\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]\big)$
        coincide with 
        $\bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_{n}^k\bigr)$;
       
       
       
        \item if there is $n \in \bm E\setminus e_k$ with $\bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_{n}^k\bigr) \ne  q_k^c$, then $k\ne k_\infty$;
        \item an expert $n \in \bm E\setminus e_k$ with $\bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_{n}^k\bigr) =  q_k^c$ does not wish to join $e_k$.
    \end{itemize}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}
If the market in question is efficient, then it is in a certain form of a Nash equilibrium. Namely, we have the following proposition.
\begin{Le}\label{lem:eqlb}
Suppose during all the rounds $k = 1,\dots,k_\infty$, an expert $m \in \bm E$ 
believes 
\begin{enumerate}[label = \textup{(m\arabic*)}]
    \item\label{it:m1} that all the other experts $n\in\bm E\setminus\{m\}$ satisfy~\ref{it:eff1} 
    and~\ref{it:eff2} as long as $\bm\Gamma$ and $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$ remain the same;
    \item\label{it:m2} that even if he or she joins~$e_k$ silently, he or she alone will not be able to distort 
    $\bm\Gamma$, $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\cdot)$, and $\Gamma_n^k$, $n\in e_k$,
    by his or her joining transaction and by trading actions during the round $k+1$; 
   
   
    \item\label{it:m3} that he or she cannot resist the concerted actions of others in the sense that the set $e_k\setminus\{m\}$ is not empty and may be substituted for $e_k$ 
    in~\ref{srm_it6}.
\end{enumerate}
Then the expert~$m$ satisfies~\ref{it:eff1} and~\ref{it:eff2} during all the rounds.
\end{Le}
\begin{proof}
Suppose the expert~$m$ silently joins $e_k$.  Due to~\ref{it:m1} and~\ref{it:m2}, he or she believes 
that during stage~\ref{srm_it3} of the round $k+1$, the probabilities
$\pi_n\big(\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]\big)$
coincide with $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma_n^{k+1})$ for $n\in e^{k+1}\setminus \{m\}$, where
$$\Gamma_n^{k+1} = \Gamma_n^k = \Gamma^k.$$
Due to~\ref{it:m3} and the myopia described in the first item of~\ref{srm_it5}, 
the expert~$m$ believes 
$$q^c_{k_\infty} = q^c_{k+1} = \bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_n^{k+1}\bigr) = \bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma^{k}) = q_k^c.$$
Therefore, by Assumption~\ref{asmp:A0_1} we obtain that at the beginning of the round $k+1$, the expert~$m$ has
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sl_cons}
\pi_m\big(\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]\big)
=q^c_{k},
\end{equation}
and thus the expected profit on his or her joining transaction is zero. 
This contradicts the second item of~\ref{srm_it5},
and thus $m$ satisfies~\ref{it:eff1}. 

Suppose the expert~$m$ belongs to $e_k$ and is at stage~\ref{srm_it3} of the round~$k$. 
We have just proved that he or she has shared his or her information and believes
$$\Gamma_m^k = \Gamma_n^k = \Gamma^k,\quad n\in e_k.$$ 
The myopia of $m$, together with assumptions~\ref{it:m1} and~\ref{it:m3}, implies that $m$ believes
$$
    q^c_{k_\infty} = q^c_{k} = \bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma^{k}) = \bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_m^{k}\bigr).
$$
Therefore, Assumption~\ref{asmp:A0_1} implies that
$$
\pi_m\big(\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]\big) =
\bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_m^{k}\bigr).
$$

If the expert~$m$ satisfies the second item of \ref{it:eff2} and joins to $e_k$, then he or she will have $\Gamma_m^{k+1} = \Gamma_m^{k}$. 
As we have just proved, the expert~$m$ will have 
$$
    \pi_m\big(\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]\big) = 
    \bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_m^{k+1}\bigr) =\bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_m^{k}\bigr) \ne q_k^c.
$$
Then by the third item of~\ref{srm_it5},
the round~$k$ cannot be the last.

If the expert~$m$ satisfies the third item of \ref{it:eff2} and joins to $e_k$, then by the same reason as above, he or she will have
$
\pi_m\big(\bm\omega\big[q^c_{k_\infty}\big]\big) = q_k^c
$
and we will have a contradiction with the second item of~\ref{srm_it5}.
\end{proof}
First, we note that item~\ref{it:m3} concerns a robustness property that, for example, the median
has, provided $|e_1| > 2$. 
This can be seen as a model of the real situation discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:sr_reality}, where we impose a restriction on 
the expert's
budgets and rely on the stability of the estimate~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ of the market-driven median $\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E)$.

Second, we note that it may be expected that the described equilibrium will naturally arises if we publicly offer the experts to trade as though the market will be resolved in accordance with~$\bm\omega$,
and to share their information in order for the system to be able to model this.

Finally, we obviously have the following analogue of~\eqref{eq:final_state}.
\begin{Fact}\label{rem:final_state_sr}
If the market in Assumption~\textup{\ref{asmp:SRM}} is efficient, then 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final_state_sr}
    \bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\Gamma_n^{k_\infty}\bigr)
    = q^c_{k_\infty} = \bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma^{k_\infty}), \quad n\in\bm E.
\end{equation}
\end{Fact}
This means that for each $n\in\bm E$, the information 
    $\Gamma_n$ is either a part of $\Gamma^{k_\infty}$, or the expert~$n$ does not understand 
    how $\Gamma_n\setminus\Gamma^{k_\infty}$ may affect $\bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\Gamma^{k_\infty})$.
    It is also important (!) that the information $\Gamma^{k_\infty}$ has been directly revealed by experts,
    does not requires computing skills to be elicited, and is fully accessible to any external observer.






    
    Since the subset $e_1\subseteq \bm E$ of experts with $\Gamma_n =\varnothing$
    is not empty, we can make a remark similar to Fact~\ref{rem:d_less_N}.
    \begin{Fact}\label{rem:shorten_fs_sr}
    We can shorten~\eqref{eq:final_state_sr} by dropping the second identity: it is a part of the first.
    \end{Fact}
    
    In the $xyz$-example from Section~\ref{subsec:gen_rem}, the experts have certain information about each other, and there are no ignorant experts with only common signals. These two facts do not allow us to incorporate this example directly into the setting of Assumption~\ref{asmp:SRM}.
    But making appropriate adjustments, we come to the following situation.
    \begin{Ex}\label{ex:xyz_sr}
        Suppose $x$, $y$, and $z$ are mutually exclusive and exhaustive outcomes 
        and this fact is known to all the experts in $\bm E$. Let $\bm\omega$, $Y$, and $Z$ be propositional variables corresponding respectively to the propositions that $x$, $y$, or $z$ has been realized.
        Suppose $Y$ and $Z$ are false. Formally, we have
        \begin{gather*}
            \bm\Gamma =\bigcup_{n\in\bm E}\Gamma_n = \{Y,Z\},\quad \bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}(Y)= \bm\gamma\cii{\bm{E}}(Z) =0,\\
            \bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\varnothing) = \tfrac{1}{3},\quad  \bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\{Y\}\bigr) = \bm\pi\bigl(\bm\omega\bigm|\{Z\}\bigr) = \tfrac{1}{2},\quad \bm\pi(\bm\omega\mid\bm\Gamma) = 1.
        \end{gather*}
        We also assume that for any $n\in\bm E$, the set $\Gamma_n$ is $\varnothing$ or $\{Y\}$ or $\{Z\}$. If the mechanism described in Assumption~\ref{asmp:SRM} arises (in particular, 
        $e_1 \ne \varnothing$) and it is efficient, then we will have $k_\infty = 3$, $\Gamma^3= \bm\Gamma$,
        and $q_3^c =1$.
    \end{Ex}
    
    
    Finally, it is worth noting that we borrow the term ``self-resolving markets'' from \cite{AhWi2018,Ah2019}, where similar markets are experimentally studied in another context. In particular, continuous securities are used instead of binary contracts, there is no direct information exchange, and each market is resolved in accordance with its current price at a random point in time (instead, we offer to employ the estimates~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$, which have more in common with the model prices~$q^c_{k}$ than the real prices do themselves; see Section~\ref{subsec:sr_reality}).











    



   
       
			
					
					
							
							
			
			
					
						
								
								
										
										
						
						
								
									
											
											
													
													
									
									
											
											
													
													
									
								
										
										
						
					
							
							
			
       
           
           
   
   
       
       
           
           
   




\section{Data and
model}\label{sec:model}
\begin{wraptable}{r}[0pt]{0.45\linewidth}


\centering
\caption{Data example.}
\label{tab:data_example}
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccc@{}}
\toprule[1.0pt]
q                & $S^+$  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}   & $S^-$  \\ \midrule
0.4167           & 6.6    & \multirow{2}{*}{$\ge$} & 0.0    \\
0.4505           & 501.9  &                        & 0.0    \\ \cmidrule(l){2-4} 
0.4808           & 315.5  & \multirow{2}{*}{$\ge$} & 20.0   \\
0.4854           & 544.3  &                        & 149.4  \\ \cmidrule(l){2-4} 
$q^-_t = 0.4902$ & 261.5  & $>$                    & 261.1  \\ \cmidrule(l){2-4} 
0.4950           & 588.0  & $=$                    & 588.0  \\ \cmidrule(l){2-4} 
$q^+_t = 0.5000$ & 304.1  & $<$                    & 668.3  \\ \cmidrule(l){2-4} 
0.5025           & 450.3  & \multirow{7}{*}{$\le$} & 1007.9 \\
0.5051           & 8.2    &                        & 8.2    \\
0.5076           & 926.3  &                        & 926.3  \\
0.5102           & 1091.9 &                        & 1561.0 \\
0.5128           & 405.8  &                        & 630.9  \\
0.5155           & 73.6   &                        & 73.6   \\
0.5181           & 48.4   &                        & 63.8   \\ \cmidrule(l){2-4} 
0.5236           & 0.0    & \multirow{2}{*}{$\le$} & 13.0   \\
0.5263           & 0.0    &                        & 2642.5 \\ \bottomrule[1.0pt]
\end{tabular}
\end{wraptable}
Here we present the data-driven model repeatedly mentioned above and show that within its framework, our data~\cite{Data2019} do not contradict hypothesis~\eqref{eq:hyp}. We also show that there exist estimates $\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ of $\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ that converge rapidly and remain stable under trading actions of experts. 
We discuss how these facts can be exploited in order to create a real self-resolving prediction mechanism with direct information exchange.


\subsection{Data}\label{subsec:data}

Our goal is the creation of a collective intelligence based on play-money prediction markets and intended for 
use in science, medicine, and engineering. 
Nevertheless, for the construction and verification of our model we need the extensive and detailed data~\cite{Data2019} collected from CDA-type real-money prediction markets related to sporting events. The resulting model seems fairly general and independent of whether 
$(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ relates to sports or to science. Eventually we come to the consideration of a self-resolving prediction market with play money.


The data concern 24 soccer games of 2013--2014. Several markets are considered for each game, and each market contains several mutually exclusive outcomes.
If there are more than $2$ outcomes in a market, then compound matching is possible and we cannot, generally speaking, reduce the situation to separate markets associated with separate propositional variables. 
But we have collected data for each outcome of each market separately. 
Such data contain the dynamics of demand and supply of contracts on the occurrence of the outcome (together with the volumes of concluded transactions).
There may be transactions that have been concluded due to compound matching, but this is not reflected
in the data and is not important for our model. Thus, the data for each outcome of each market fit into 
the pattern from Table~\ref{PSState}, and it is possible to treat them as data of a separate market for a separate propositional variable (we can merge data if there are exactly $2$ complementary outcomes in a market). 

Let $\bm\omega$ represent one of $576$ outcomes from one of 96 markets related to one of 24 soccer games mentioned above. Let $[t_0,T]$ 
be the interval\footnote{At the pre-announced time~$T$ all non-matched votes have been returned to the owners, and very shortly after that the corresponding game have started (together with a so-called live market).} where the corresponding market has existed.
Then the data for $\bm\omega$ can be represented as a collection of time series $V^{\pm}_t(q)$ of volumes in dollars that 
have the same meaning as in Section~\ref{subsec:voting}.
Here $q$ runs over the finite (but quite dense)
grid $Q \subset (0,1)$ of all prices available for trading, and $t$ runs over an observation interval 
$[t_1,t_2] \subset [t_0,T]$ (where the changes of market state have been checked with frequency of approximately $1$~second and $T - t_2 < 20\mbox{ sec.}$). 
We note that for each $t\in[t_1,t_2]$, the corresponding aggregated data represent the whole interval $[t_0,t]$, 
not only $[t_1,t]$: we have started by obtaining $V^{\pm}_{t_1}(q)$ and, after that, have scanned subsequent changes.

Repository~\cite{Data2019} contains our PostgreSQL data and R scripts as well as the R workspace \path{CI.RData} where 
all the scripts and some data for two soccer events (see the data frames \verb+data12+ and \verb+data13+) have been preloaded (see also~\cite{RCT2021, Wi2016}).
All calls given in this article should be made from \path{CI.RData}.
For example, the following call returns the data in the $S^\pm$-form for an outcome of a French soccer event.

\begin{samepage}
\begin{verbatim}
    AggData(dat = data13,   # 08 March 2014, Guingamp vs. Evian TG
            outcome = 1,    # Guingamp win outcome
            time = 30*60)   # t = t_1 + 30 min. 
\end{verbatim}
\end{samepage}
The result is partially shown in Table~\ref{tab:data_example}. It is fully consistent with Table~\ref{PSState}.

\subsection{Model assumptions: probabilities}\label{subsec:mod_prob} 
Suppose there is a prediction market for~$\bm\omega$ that 
exists during a pre-announced interval $[t_0,T]$, generates volumes~$V^{\pm}_{t}(q)$, and yields a sample $\bm e \subseteq \bm E$ of all the experts who add some orders to it during $[t_0,T]$.
The first two model assumptions concern the experts' probabilities and connect the model with the pre-model described in Assumption~\ref{asmp:A2}.
\begin{Asmp}[connection with the pre-model]
\label{M_0}
For the market just introduced, conditions \ref{A2}--\ref{A2_2} from Assumption~\ref{asmp:A2} hold for $t\in [t_0,T]$ and for $\bm e$ substituted for~$\bm E$.
\end{Asmp}
We refer to the market that is introduced above and satisfies Assumption~\ref{M_0}, as \emph{the regular market}.

In the regular market, we can, as in Section~\ref{subsec:voting}, consider $\pi_v$ where $v$ runs over the sets~$\mathcal{V}_t$ of normalized votes.
The next assumption postulates (inter alia) that in spite of a limited time and number of participants, the regular market
is representative for the unlimited market
from Assumption~\ref{asmp:A2} with respect to $\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E)$.
Let $f_{\mu,\sigma}$ and $F_{\mu,\sigma}$ be the density and cumulative distribution functions of $\mathcal{N}(\mu,\sigma^2)$, 
and let~$\delta_x$ be the delta measure concentrated at~$x$.
\begin{Asmp}[beliefs normality and representativeness]\label{M_1}
Let $t \in [t_0,T]$. 
We assume that votes $v \in \mathcal{V}_t$ have been generated by separate orders and that
the values $\{\pi_v\}_{v\in \mathcal{V}_t}$
are i.i.d.
with distribution $\mathcal{N}_{[0,1]}(\mu,\sigma_t^2)$. It is a modifications of the normal distribution with all the values outside the unit interval reset to the points~$0$ and~$1$, i.e. with the density 
functions
$$
	\delta_0(x)\,F_{\mu,\sigma_t}(0) + \mathds{1}_{(0,1)}(x)\, f_{\mu,\sigma_t}(x) + \delta_1(x)\,(1-F_{\mu,\sigma_t}(1)).
$$
We assume that $\mu$ does not depend on $t$ and represents 
the market-driven median that would generated by the unlimited market
if it was started instead of the regular market
at the same point~$t_0$:
$$
\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E) = 
\begin{cases}
0,& \mu \le 0;\\
\mu,& 0\le \mu\le 1;\\
1,& \mu \ge 1.
\end{cases}
$$
\end{Asmp}

The sample~$\bm e$ is what we initially have or what we can control. 
What a population~$\bm E$ it represents is a matter of common sense and situation, not mathematics. At least, we must have reason to believe that $\bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E) = \bm p(\bm\omega,\bm e)$. In particular, we may set $\bm E \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \bm e$. 
If we talk about our data~\cite{Data2019}, they have been collected from the largest platform with sports CDA markets. Its numerous users represent most of the countries, and we may
assume that $\bm E$ is the population of all the people except some insiders.\footnote{We assume that coaches or team members do not participate in the trade.}


Next, we note that in fact, Assumption~\ref{M_1} generates a collection of models: for each interval $[t_0, t]$, we have its own averaged dispersion~$\sigma_t$ of beliefs. 
Each such model concerns the aggregated data~$V^{\pm}_{t}(q)$ that include \emph{no} time-related information on how these volumes have been produced during $[t_0,t]$.
In fact, we do not introduce here a stochastic process that accurately models the dynamics of~$\pi_v$, 
but rather make a certain ergodicity assumption: loosely speaking, there exist $\sigma_t$ such that the quantities
$$
    \biggl|\frac{1}{|\mathcal{V}_t|}\sum_{v\in\mathcal{V}_t} \mathds{1}_{[0,\theta]}(\pi_v) - F_{\mu,\sigma_t}(\theta)\biggr|,\quad \theta\in [0,1],
$$
become small as $t$ increases
(cf. \cite[Section~V.3.4, Problem~3]{Sh1989trans}).

Concerning the distributions $\mathcal{N}_{[0,1]}(\mu,\sigma_t^2)$, we note that they have the desired property that 
the values $0$ and $1$ are not excluded from consideration. 
See also \cite[Figure~5]{WoZi2006}, which empirically justifies our choice of distribution.

\subsection{Model assumptions: utilities}\label{subsec:mod_util}
Hereinafter, by lotteries we mean finite probability distributions over $\mathbb{R}$: they assign 
probabilities to experts' possessions. Consider an expert with a budget~$b$ and 
consider all the lotteries $L$ with $m_L< b < M_L$ together with the inaction 
lottery $L_b$ with $m_{L_b} = M_{L_b} = b$. Here $m_L$ and $M_L$ are the minimum and maximum possible possessions of the expert due to~$L$. Thus, we exclude from consideration all the lotteries where 
win is possible and loss is impossible or vice versa. 
We introduce the lottery dependent utility function
\begin{equation}\label{eq:drp}
	u(x\mid \lambda, b, L) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq 
	\frac{1-\exp\big({-\lambda\frac{x-m_L}{M_L-m_L}}\big)}
	{1-\exp\big({-\lambda\frac{b-m_L}{M_L-m_L}}\big)},
	\quad \lambda \in \mathbb{R},\quad x\in [m_L, M_L].
\end{equation}
We also pass to the limit and set $u(b\mid \lambda, b, L_b) = 1$.
When the expert relies on this function to compare the lotteries under consideration, we say that he or she is subject to
\emph{the double relativity principle}: the scale of the possible results~$x$ is considered relatively to its minimum~$m_L$ and maximum~$M_L$, and the scale of utility is considered 
relatively to the expert's status quo in the denominator of~\eqref{eq:drp}. We continue to discuss such functions~$u$ (together with appropriate axioms) in Section~\ref{subsec:util}. Now we only 
note that they do not fit into the existent theories \cite{BeSa1987, Co1992, Sch2001} of lottery dependent utilities.


\begin{Asmp}[experts' utilities]\label{M_2}
Let $o_\tau = (s,q,n)^{\pm}$, $\tau\in [t_0,T]$, be any order in the regular market.
By $b_n^\tau$ we denote the budget of the expert~$n$ that he or she has had immediately \emph{before} placement of~$o_\tau$. 
We assume that in addition to $\pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)$, the expert~$n$ associates with $o_\tau$ some values 
$$\rho(o_\tau) \in (0,1]\quad\mbox{and}\quad 1-\rho(o_\tau) \in [0,1)$$ 
that play, in accordance with inequality~\eqref{eq:M_2} below, the role of probabilities of
the events ``$o_\tau$~will be completely matched'' and 
``$o_\tau$ will remain completely unmatched'', respectively. 
The alternative ``$o_\tau$~will be partially matched'' is not considered at all. We consider the lottery~$L$ that corresponds to the possible variations of the possession~$b_n^\tau$ due to the order $o_\tau$. 
We assume that placing $o_\tau$, the expert~$n$
believes (in terms of the double relativity) that $L$ is better than inaction. Namely, if $o_\tau$ is a buy order, then 
either $\pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega) = 1$ or
\begin{equation}\label{eq:M_2}
\rho(o_\tau)\, U(o_\tau)
+(1-\rho(o_\tau))\,u\big(b_n^{\tau} \,\big |\, \lambda_n^\tau, b_n^{\tau}, L\big)> 1,
\end{equation}
where $U(o_\tau)$ is the expected utility of the order~$o_\tau$ as though it has been completely matched:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:U}
U(o_\tau) = \pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)\, u\big(M_L \,\big |\, \lambda_n^\tau, b_n^{\tau}, L\big) 
+(1-\pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega))\, u\big(m_L \,\big |\, \lambda_n^\tau, b_n^{\tau}, L\big),
\end{equation}
where 
$$\pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)\in(0,1),\quad M_L = b_n^\tau + (1-q)s,\quad m_L = b_n^\tau - qs,\quad\mbox{and}\quad \lambda_n^\tau \in\mathbb{R}.$$
For a sell order, we
swap $q$ with $1-q$ and $\pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)$ 
with $1-\pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)$.
\end{Asmp}
We make some comments on this assumption. First, the quantity~$b_n^\tau$ is the result that the expert~$n$ has expected, before placement of~$o_\tau$, from the market in the worst-case scenario. In other words, $b_n^\tau$ is the amount available for trading at time~$\tau$. 
The expert~$n$ may be already involved in a lottery at time $\tau$ due to previous orders, but 
we assume that he or she thinks locally and decides whether to leave the amount~$b_n^\tau$ untouched or 
to use a part of it in a new lottery (which is considered separately). 
We will see below that nothing depends on the values~$b_n^\tau$ at all.

Second, the assumption that the expert~$n$ does not believe that $o_\tau$ may be partially matched, is consistent with the fact that in Assumption~\ref{M_1} we represent the market as a flaw of small ``unit'' orders.

By combining \eqref{eq:drp}, \eqref{eq:M_2}, and \eqref{eq:U} and by making simple equivalent transformations, we reach the following consequence.
\begin{Le}\label{lem:cenz_mech}
Let $t\in[t_0,T]$, and let $v\in\mathcal{V}_t$ be one of the votes constituting $V^{+}_t(q)$ for some $q\in(0,1)$.
Consider the order $o_\tau = (s,q,n)^{+}$ that have generated~$v$ at time $\tau\in[t_0,t]$.
We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Upls}
U(o_\tau) = U^+\bigl(\pi_n^{\tau}(\bm\omega), q, \lambda_n^\tau\bigr)\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \frac{\pi_n^{\tau}(\bm\omega)}{\theta^+_{\lambda_n^\tau}(q)},
\quad
\mbox{where}\quad
\theta^+_{\lambda_n^\tau}(q) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \frac{1-\exp({-\lambda_n^\tau q})}{1-\exp({-\lambda_n^\tau})},
\end{equation}
and $o_\tau$ satisfies Assumption~\textup{\ref{M_2}} if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:theta_plus}
\pi_v =\pi_n^{\tau}(\bm\omega
>\theta^+_{\lambda_n^\tau}(q).
\end{equation}

If $v$ is one of $V^{-}_t(q)$ votes and $o_\tau = (s,q,n)^{-}$ is the corresponding order, then 
we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Umns}
U(o_\tau) = U^-\bigl(\pi_n^{\tau}(\bm\omega), q, \lambda_n^\tau\bigr)\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \frac{1-\pi_n^{\tau}(\bm\omega)}{1-\theta^-_{\lambda_n^\tau}(q)},
\quad\mbox{where}\quad
\theta^-_{\lambda_n^\tau}(q) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \frac{1-\exp(\lambda_n^\tau q)}{1-\exp(\lambda_n^\tau)},
\end{equation}
and $o_\tau$ satisfies Assumption~\textup{\ref{M_2}} if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:theta_minus}
\pi_v < \theta^-_{\lambda_n^\tau}(q).
\end{equation}
\end{Le}
Note that
in Proposition~\ref{lem:cenz_mech}, nothing depends on $s$, $b_n^{\tau}$, or $\rho(o_\tau)$.
\begin{Asmp}[connecting all together]\label{M_3}
Suppose Assumptions
\ref{M_1} and~\ref{M_2} hold for our regular market. Fix $t\in[t_0,T]$ and suppose $\tau$ runs over $[t_0,t]$. We consider all the orders~$o_\tau$ that 
have generated the votes in~$\mathcal{V}_t$. In Assumption~\ref{M_2}, we take the identical parameters 
$\lambda_n^\tau = \lambda_t < 0$ for all such~$o_\tau$. In addition, we assume that there is a fixed relation between $\lambda_t$ and the parameters $\mu$ and~$\sigma_t$ (see Assumption~\ref{M_1}), provided $\mu \in (0,1)$. Namely, we have $\lambda_t = \lmd(\mu,\sigma_t)$, where 
$$\lmd\colon(0,1)\times(0,+\infty) \to (-\infty,0)$$ is a certain function such that 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lmd_prop}
|\lmd(\mu,\sigma)|\searrow 0 \quad\mbox{as}\quad \sigma\searrow 0.
\end{equation}
\end{Asmp}
 Recall that the symbol $\searrow$ is introduced in Section~\ref{subsec:notation}. Similar to the situation with~$\sigma_t$, for each time $t$ we have a specific 
parameter~$\lambda_t$ applied to the whole interval~$[t_0,t]$. 
In further, we use a specific function~$\lmd(\cdot,\cdot)$ that is derived from 
certain conditions of economic equilibrium inspired by \cite{Ma2006,WoZi2006}. It is constructed for not too large $\sigma$, but this does not prevent its use in any practical situation. Details are provided in Section~\ref{subsec:econ_equil}. 

We have the following simple fact.
\begin{Fact}\label{rem:gap_dec}
Under Assumption~\textup{\ref{M_3}}, we have $\theta^+_{\lambda_t}(q)<q<\theta^-_{\lambda_t}(q)$ and 
$$|q -\theta^\pm_{\lambda_t}(q)| \searrow 0 \quad\mbox{as}\quad \sigma_t\searrow 0.$$
\end{Fact}
We can give the following interpretation of this fact.
The less the dispersion of beliefs is, 
the less each expert~$n$ expects that he or she does not know something that others do and that his or her probability can be refined. 
High confidence in his or her probability causes 
$n$ to be less deviating from it and to be less inclined to trade at unfavorable prices: to buy at $q > \pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)$ or to
sell at $q < \pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)$. An extreme example is where all the experts reliably know that $\bm\omega$ represents a fair coin toss, and have no reason to be risk-seekers.

This can also be treated as follows. A possible gain or loss in a lottery connected with~$\bm\omega$
makes the outcomes $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ and $\bm\omega\mapsto 0$ positive or negative for an expert~$n$ who measures this lottery.
This fact leads to optimism bias~\cite{We1980}. In other words, the expert~$n$'s mental probabilities of winning and losing the lottery does not coincide with his or her probabilities
$\pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)$ and $1-\pi_n^\tau(\bm\omega)$ of the underlying outcomes. 
In this interpretation, Fact~\ref{rem:gap_dec} implies that less ambiguity leads to less optimism bias. 
For classical von Ne\-um\-ann--Mor\-gen\-stern utilities, 
a similar relation between optimism/pessimism, risk seeking/aversion, and ambiguity is formalized in~\cite{DiPoRo2017} 
(see also the experimental study~\cite{WeSo2014}).

The optimistic behavior discussed above does not contradict ambiguity aversion~\cite{El1961}, which is another well known behavioral characteristic of
decision makers. 
Namely,
an expert can always choose to wait until his or her comparative ignorance~\cite{FoTv1995}, causing the feeling of ambiguity,
decreases. This is 
\emph{not} the same as to choose inaction and to leave the market: we do not even measure the waiting alternative in terms of utility.
The expert's optimism also decreases, but at some point a certain lottery may become preferable to further waiting.
We will see further that~$\sigma_t$ decreases over time together with the overall comparative ignorance.

\subsection{Model meets real data}\label{subsec:mod_meets_dat}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{graph13.eps}
\caption{Estimates in operational time.}
\label{fig:mu_sgm_gr}
\end{figure}
Suppose $\bm\omega$ represents one of the outcomes described in Section~\ref{subsec:data} and  
the volumes~$V_t^\pm(q)$ represent the corresponding real data in~\cite{Data2019}.
Let $t$ be from the observation interval $[t_1,t_2]$. 
We can calculate 
the probability of the event that $\pi_v$ satisfy inequalities~\eqref{eq:theta_plus} 
and~\eqref{eq:theta_minus} where $v$ runs over~$\mathcal{V}_t$ and all $\lambda_n^\tau$ coincide with single~$\lambda$. We interpret the logarithm of
this probability as a log-likelihood function:
\begin{multline}\label{eq:logL}
    \log L(\mu,\sigma\mid\lambda)\\ \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq 
    \sum_{q\in Q} \Big(V_t^+(q)\log\big(1-F_{\mu,\sigma}\big(\theta^+_{\lambda}(q)\big)\big) +
    V_t^-(q)\log F_{\mu,\sigma}\big(\theta^-_{\lambda}(q)\big)\Big).
\end{multline}
Certain issues concerning the validity of applying the function $\log L$ are discussed in Section~\ref{subsec:market_dyn}.
It turns out that we can choose $\hat\lambda_t < 0$ for which
a numerical optimization of $\log L\bigl(\mu,\sigma\bigm|\hat\lambda_t\bigr)$ over $\mu$ and $\sigma$ gives estimates $\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ and $\hat\sigma_t$ such that
${\hat\lambda_t = \lmd(\hat{\bm\mu}_t,\hat\sigma_t)}$.
Details of the corresponding algorithm can be found in Section~\ref{subsec:econ_equil}.
Now we employ this approach to \verb+data13+ from \path{CI.RData} (see~\cite{Data2019} and Section~\ref{subsec:data}) and show how the estimates in question vary over time. 
We make the following calls.
\begin{samepage}
\begin{verbatim}
    gr <- GetGraphOperTime(dat = data13, outcome = 1, voldlt = 1000)
    PlotMuSgm(gr)   # requires ggplot2 and grid.
\end{verbatim}
\end{samepage}
The result is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mu_sgm_gr}, where all the graphs are presented in the operational time~$\nu$ that corresponds to the total volume of votes:
$$
    t=t(\nu) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \min\{\tau\in[t_1,t_2]\mid |\mathcal{V}_\tau| \ge \nu\}.
$$
The numbers under the graphs are the volume in thousands of dollars. The price~$q_t^c$ oscillates somewhere between $q_t^-$ and $q_t^+$, while $q^\pm_t$ oscillate themselves throughout 
$[t_1,t_2]$. At the same time, the estimate~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ quickly converges and remains extremely stable in spite of huge volumes of offers. 
The estimate $\hat\sigma_t$ measures the average variability of beliefs during $[t_0,t]$. 
In Figure~\ref{fig:mu_sgm_gr}, it begins to decrease after $\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ has stabilized. 

Suppose $0<\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E) < 1$ and consider a price $q>\bm\mu$. Suppose we are within Assumption~\ref{M_3} (which includes Assumptions~\ref{M_1} and~\ref{M_2}), and suppose we begin 
to reduce~$\sigma_t$. Then, due to Fact~\ref{rem:gap_dec}, after a certain point we will have $\bm\mu<\theta^+_{\lambda_t}(q)<q,$
and $q-\theta^+_{\lambda_t}$ will continue to shrink (together with the density of the distribution of beliefs around~$\bm\mu$). Therefore, 
according to
\eqref{eq:theta_plus}, we will observe an unlimited decrease in the probability of occurrence of beliefs that could generate buy orders for~$q$. Again, 
due to Fact~\ref{rem:gap_dec} and~\eqref{eq:theta_minus}, the same is true for sell orders for any price $q<\bm\mu$. 
Thus, informally speaking, a range of prices where concluded transactions are probable will shrink around~$\bm\mu$. This reasoning, together with 
the constancy of~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ and a developing decrease in $\hat\sigma_t$ observed in Figure~\ref{fig:mu_sgm_gr}, leads to the following conclusion.

\begin{Con} Consider the regular market, which is introduced at the beginning of Section~\textup{\ref{subsec:mod_prob}} and satisfies Assumption~\textup{\ref{M_0}}. 
There exists its reasonable model \textup{(}by which we mean Assumption~\textup{\ref{M_3}}\textup{)}
such that our data, interpreted through this model, do not contradict the following hypothesis. 
In the unlimited market, which is introduced in Assumption~\textup{\ref{asmp:A2}} and is partially
implemented by the regular market, the beliefs $\pi_n^t(\bm\omega)$ would approaches~$\bm\mu$, transactions would conclude at prices increasingly close to $\bm\mu$, and we would finally have 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final_state_PM2}
    \pi_n^{t_\infty}(\bm\omega)= \bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E)=\bm q(\bm\omega,\bm E),\quad n\in\bm E.
   
\end{equation}
\end{Con}
\begin{Con}\label{con:reg_mkt}
The model under discussion gives an algorithm that allows us to derive, from our data, the estimate~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ of $\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ that becomes extremely stable after a certain point. It is reasonable to assume
that if in the regular market
the estimate $\hat{\bm\mu}_T$ is public at $T$, 
then we will have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:final_state_M0}
    \pi_n^{T}(\bm\omega)= \hat{\bm\mu}_T,\quad n\in\bm e.
   
\end{equation}
\end{Con}

Fact~\ref{rem:d_less_N} implies that identities~\eqref{eq:final_state_PM2} and~\eqref{eq:final_state_M0} can be considered as an analogue of~\eqref{eq:final_state}. 
We also note that the additional identity $\pi_n^{t_\infty}(\bm\omega)=\bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ does not contradict theoretical and empirical considerations presented in Sections~\ref{subsec:pen_model} and~\ref{subsec:emp_evid}.  
In Section~\ref{subsec:market_dyn}, we show that the data does not contradict the model 
itself, and in 
Sections~\ref{subsec:econ_equil} and~\ref{subsec:util}, we
describe how this model has been chosen. 





\subsection{Interpretable collective intelligence}
\label{subsec:sr_reality}
Consider the regular market that is described at the beginning of Section~\ref{subsec:mod_prob} and is assumed to satisfy Assumption~\ref{M_0}. Suppose there is a pre-announced algorithm~$\mathfrak{A}$ for eliciting $\hat{\bm\mu}_{t}$ from $V^{\pm}_t(q)$, and $\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ is public at~$T$. 
We introduce the following modifications.
\begin{enumerate}[label = \textup{(md\arabic*)}]
\item\label{md1}
Each participant $n\in\bm e$
gets one and the same volume $b_n = b$ of \emph{play money} that
can be employed in this market (and only in it): the experts are assumed to have an equal opportunity to affect the market by trading. 
\item\label{md2} 
We 
resolve the market 
in accordance with $\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}]$.
\end{enumerate}
In addition to Assumption~\ref{M_0},
we make an assumption that is a variety of the temporal coherence property.
An expert is temporal coherent if he or she cannot predict whether his or her belief will increase or decrease on average (see also the discussion in~\cite[23--26]{PaIn2009}). In Bayesian setting, this means that learning trees are martingales. 
In our pre-Ba\-ye\-si\-an language, temporal coherence between~$t$ and~$T$ can be postulated as follows.
   
\begin{Asmp}[temporal coherence]\label{TC}   
    For $n\in\bm e$ and $t\in[t_0,T]$, we have 
   
        $$\pi_n^t\big(\bm\omega\big[\pi_n^{T}(\bm\omega)\big]\big) = \pi_n^t(\bm\omega),$$
   
    where the existence of the left expression is postulated as in Assumption~\ref{asmp:A0} with 
   
    $\bm\omega\big[\pi_n^{T}(\bm\omega)\big]$
    instead of~$\bm\omega$.
    
   
   
\end{Asmp}    
We refer to the market in question, which is modified in accordance with~\ref{md1} and~\ref{md2} and satisfies Assumptions~\ref{M_0} and~\ref{TC}, as \emph{the collective intelligence}.
\begin{Def}
The collective intelligence is $\mu$-\emph{efficient} if each expert $n\in\bm e$ satisfies the following conditions.
\begin{enumerate}[label = \textup{($\mu$\arabic*)}]
    \item\label{j1} At each time~$t\in [t_0,T]$, there exists $\delta \in[0, T-t]$ such that the expert~$n$ believes that if he or she
    publicly generates, during an interval $[t,t+\delta]$, certain signals $\alpha^t_n\mathbin{@} A^t_n$ 
    (i.e. makes $A^t_n$ a part of $\bigcap_{n\in\bm e} \Gamma_n^{t+\delta}$), then this will lead to the identity 
   
   
    $\pi_n^T(\bm\omega) = \hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ whatever orders the expert~$n$ will place during~$[t,T]$. 
    \item\label{j2} If $n$ places an order~$o_t$,
    then he or she believes that he or she \emph{will 
    indeed} publicly generate $\alpha^t_n\mathbin{@} A^t_n$ during $(t,t+\delta]$.
   
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}

We make some comments concerning~\ref{j1} and~\ref{j2}. First, we emphasize that the signals $\alpha^t_n\mathbin{@} A^t_n$ do not depend on the expert $n$'s planned voting actions: $n$~is going to transmit these signals to others directly. Second, we clarify that $\delta$ depends on $t$ and $n$: 
the interval $[t+\delta,T]$ must be long enough for the collective intelligence to manage to process the new information. Third, we note that Assumption~\ref{TC} implies that if $n$ 
satisfies~\ref{j1} and believes that he or she will generate $\alpha^t_n\mathbin{@} A^t_n$ during $(t,t+\delta]$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sh_cons_ci}
\pi_n^t(\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}]) = \pi_n^t\big(\bm\omega\big[\pi_n^{T}(\bm\omega)\big]\big) = \pi_n^t(\bm\omega).
\end{equation}
We come to the following statement. 
\begin{Fact}\label{rem:mu_eff_cor_1}
If an expert $n\in\bm e$ satisfies~\ref{j1} and~\ref{j2}, then $n$ relies 
in the voting on his or her mental probability of $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$:
when $n$ places an order~$o_t$, 
the probability $\pi_n^t(\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}])$ exists and coincides with
$\pi_n^t(\bm\omega)$.
\end{Fact}
Finally, substituting $T$ for $t$ in \ref{j1}, we immediately come to the following fact, which may,
due to Fact~\ref{rem:shorten_fs_sr}, be viewed as an analogue of 
Fact~\ref{rem:final_state_sr}.    
\begin{Fact}
The property of $\mu$-efficiency includes property~\eqref{eq:final_state_M0}.
\end{Fact}



We present \emph{heuristic} arguments that $\mu$-efficiency is some sort of equilibrium in a sense close to Proposition~\ref{lem:eqlb}.
We note that for further studies, the experimental verification and the practical implementation of our ideas seem to be much more preferable and realistic than a complete formalization of the considerations below. 
We also need to adapt to each other an automated market maker and 
our algorithm for 
eliciting~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ (see also Section~\ref{subsec:market_dyn}).

Consider an individual expert $m \in \bm e$ and make the following assumption.
\begin{Asmp}\label{asmp:equil_premise}
    During $[t_0,T]$, the expert $m$ believes
    \begin{enumerate}
        \item that the others experts $n\in \bm{e}\setminus\{m\}$ satisfy
        \ref{j1} and~\ref{j2};
        \item\label{it:alg} that Conclusion~\ref{con:reg_mkt} is true for the original regular market without modifications~\ref{md1} and~\ref{md2},
        but with public~$\hat{\bm\mu}_T$ calculated by~$\mathfrak{A}$.
    \end{enumerate}
\end{Asmp}
Section~\ref{subsec:mod_meets_dat} and further details in Section~\ref{sec:details} justify the existence of a suitable algorithm that induces~\ref{it:alg} and can be taken as~$\mathfrak{A}$.

Due to Fact~\ref{rem:mu_eff_cor_1}, the expert~$m$ believes that the others rely on $\pi_n^t(\bm\omega)$ in their trading. 
From his or her point of view, the collective intelligence looks like a normal market where 
constraints on experts' ability to transmit information through 
trading are compensated by direct information exchange. Concerning the constraints just mentioned, in Setting~\ref{sett:priv} of the experiment~\cite{AlKiPf2009} we can presumably see that critical information
may be poorly transmitted through an ordinary market with~\ref{md1}. We may assume that this effect strengthens as the number of experts without this information increases. 
Suppose the expert~$m$ indeed believes he or she cannot distort the others' probabilities by voting. 
Since $m$ regards the collective intelligence as the regular market with an active channel for direct information exchange, and believes that in the regular market the algorithm~$\mathfrak{A}$ would give 
the estimate~$\hat{\bm\mu}_{t}$ remaining stable under the order flaw after a certain point, 
the following assumption is justified.
\begin{Inf}
    At each time $t\in[t_0,T]$, the expert~$m$ believes
    that he or she cannot 
   
    affect~$\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ by his or her voting actions alone. 
\end{Inf}
The expert~$m$ also believes that~$\mathfrak{A}$ gives relation~\eqref{eq:final_state_M0} in the regular market.
Therefore, since $m$ treats the collective intelligence as the regular market with the main information channel separated from the market itself, 
we may assume that if the expert~$m$ timely adds, like the others, his or her information to this channel,
then he or she will believe that $\pi_m^T(\bm\omega) = \hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ regardless of his or her voting actions. 
Namely, we can make the following assumption. 
\begin{Inf}\label{inf:mu1_is_true}
    Statement~\ref{j1} is true for~$m$ at the beginning of the voting. It remains true during $[t_0, T]$,
    provided $m$ participates in direct information exchange in accordance with~\ref{j2} so that 
    the significance of the information $\alpha^t_m\mathbin{@} A^t_m$, intended for sharing, decreases over time (together with the time required for processing this information by the collective intelligence).
    
   
   
   
    
   
    
   
   
\end{Inf}

The main logic leading to~\ref{j2} for~$m$ is contained in the theoretical model from Section~\ref{subsec:sr_theory}. In the general context under consideration, we also provide certain non\nobreakdash-ri\-go\-ro\-us arguments that    
such behavior is justified.
Let $m$ satisfy~\ref{j1} at time ${t\in [t_0, T]}$, and let $A_m^t\ne\varnothing$. 
Suppose there is a price $q=q_t^+=q_t^-$ that is generated, for example, by an automated market maker and
at which buy and sell orders can be placed at time~$t$.    
This is a deliberate simplification: a real market maker always has a 
bid/ask spread for non-zero orders  
(see also the discussion at the very end of Section~\ref{subsec:market_dyn}). 
Suppose the expert~$m$ considers~$q$  
coherent with the current public information: 
$m$ believes that 
$\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ would be equal to 
$q$ 
if he or she remained silent and if, in addition, it turned out that $A_n^t=\varnothing$ for $n\in\bm{e}\setminus\{m\}$.
Assume that 
$$\eta \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq {\pi_m^t(\bm\omega)}-{q}
\ne 0.$$ For definiteness, suppose $\eta>0$.
By virtue of~\eqref{eq:sh_cons_ci}, if $m$ is going to share $\alpha^t_m\mathbin{@} A^t_m$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sh_cons_ci_mm}
\pi_m^t(\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}]) = 
q + \eta.
\end{equation}
By $\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}^{\mathrm{sl}}$ we denote 
the result that $\mathfrak{A}$ will return at $T$ if $m$ remains silent during $[t,T]$. 
Suppose the expert~$m$ anticipates that a part of his or her information is known to others and will be used by them. 
Namely, suppose the following generalization of~\eqref{eq:sl_cons} holds:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sl_cons_ci}
\pi_m^t\bigl(\bm\omega\bigl[\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}^{\mathrm{sl}}\bigr]\bigr) =
q+ \xi,
\end{equation}
where $\xi \in [0, \eta)$. We may expect that if $m$ did not consider his or her information to be significant or if $m$ believed that other experts know it all, then he or she could set $A_m^t = \varnothing$. This justifies the assumptions $\eta \ne 0$ and $\xi \ne \eta$.


We compare the following \emph{five} alternatives: the expert~$m$ 
\begin{itemize}
    \item does nothing, 
    \item places a buy/sell order at~$q$ and remains silent, 
    \item places
a buy/sell order at~$q$ and publicly generates $\alpha^t_m\mathbin{@} A^t_m$.
\end{itemize}
Recalling the double relativity principle together with relations~\eqref{eq:Upls} and~\eqref{eq:Umns}, 
and using
\eqref{eq:sh_cons_ci_mm} and~\eqref{eq:sl_cons_ci}, we can infer that in order to choose the best alternative, we need to select the maximum among the following five values:
$$
1,\quad U^\pm\bigl(q+\xi, q, \lambda_m^t\bigr),\quad\mbox{and}\quad U^\pm\bigl(q+\eta,q,\lambda_m^t\bigr),
$$
where by analogy with Asumption~\ref{M_3}, we suppose $\lambda_m^t < 0$.
Each of these values is not greater than one of the following two of them, with the limits obtained by~\eqref{eq:Upls} and~\eqref{eq:Umns}:
\begin{equation
\label{eq:limU}
\begin{aligned}
&U^-\bigl(q+\xi, q, \lambda_m^t\bigr)\searrow \psi_q(\xi)\\
&U^+\bigl(q+\eta,q,\lambda_m^t\bigr) \searrow \varphi_q(\eta)
\end{aligned}
\qquad\mbox{as}\quad \bigl|\lambda_m^t\bigr|\searrow 0,
\end{equation}
where $\psi_{q}(\xi) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq 1 - \tfrac{\xi}{1-q} \le 1$ and $\varphi_q(\eta) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq 1 + \tfrac{\eta}{q} > 1$.
In both situations where the significance $|\eta|$ of the information $\alpha^t_m\mathbin{@} A^t_m$ is sufficiently large or 
the degree~$\bigl|\lambda_m^t\bigr|$ of risk seeking is sufficiently small, the expert~$m$ chooses to vote for $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$ and to share his or her
information. His or her anxiety~$|\xi|$ about others' knowledge enhances the effect.
If $\eta < 0$, then by analogical reasoning, we can draw a similar inference with respect to $\bm\omega \mapsto 0$.


It is interesting to note the following facts. If we interpret $q$
as the probability of $\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}] \mapsto 1$ based on the current public information, then the positive quantity
$$
   
    \log_2 \varphi_q(\eta) = \log_2 \frac{\pi_m^t(\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}])}{q} > 0
$$
can be interpreted exactly as subjective Kharkevich's value of the information 
${\alpha^t_m\mathbin{@} A^t_m}$ for the expert~$m$ with respect to the goal to make
a profit from a buy order at~$q$. If $\xi > 0$, then the negative quantity
$$
\log_2 \psi_q(\xi) = \log_2 \frac{1-\pi_m^t\bigl(\bm\omega\bigl[\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}^{\mathrm{sl}}\bigr]\bigr)}{1-q} < 0 
$$
is subjective Kharkevich's value of the part of the expert $m$'s information
known to others,
with respect to the goal to make
a profit from a sell order at~$q$.
The value of information with respect to a certain goal was defined 
by Kharkevich in~\cite{Kh1960}. That definition and its discussion can be found, for example, in the survey~\cite{RoRe2018}.

Further, we still believe that $\bigl|\lambda_m^t\bigr|$ is associated with the expert $m$'s expectations about others' information unknown to him or her, and that this value vanishes together with the dispersion of beliefs (see the discussion following Fact~\ref{rem:gap_dec}). In other words, $\bigl|\lambda_m^t\bigr|$ is associated with the comparative 
ignorance of~$m$ with respect to other experts. In the case of relatively small~$\eta > 0$ and relatively large~$\bigl|\lambda_m^t\bigr|$, it may happen that the value of $U^-$ in~\eqref{eq:limU}
is greater than the corresponding value of $U^+$.
On the assumption that $m$ still wants to pursue his or her information advantage, this may imply that $m$ does not consider the present moment suitable for voting at all.  Namely, 
$m$ may choose a sixth alternative: to wait until his or her comparative ignorance, together with $\bigl|\lambda_m^t\bigr|$, decreases. This option does not contradict the above considerations: 
the functions~$U^\pm$ can describe preferences only within the same level~$\lambda_m^t$ of risk seeking,
and the alternatives ``to do nothing'' and ``to wait and act'' are not the same.
If the expert $m$'s comparative ignorance decreases and 
the significance of his or her information does not, then there will come a point when 
placing a buy order together with information sharing will become more attractive than silent voting in the opposite direction. 
The expert~$m$ could find this moment suitable for taking his or her information advantage. 
The waiting time may be long only if the information has little significance and processing it requires little time.
The case $\eta < 0$ can be treated similarly. 
We note that the above considerations are in line with the results of~\cite{FoTv1995}, which show that comparative ignorance may lead to ambiguity aversion behavior. 
Further, we may expect that if $m$ shares his or her information or it leaks out through other experts while $m$ waits, then its significance will decrease and, due to
Inference~\ref{inf:mu1_is_true}, Statement~\ref{j1} will remain true for~$m$. We come to the following inference.


\begin{Inf}
    There is no contradiction in supposing that if the expert~$m$ satisfies Assumption~\ref{asmp:equil_premise}, then \ref{j1} and \ref{j2} will be true for $m$.
\end{Inf}
We make some additional remarks. 
We have suggested that during $[t_0, T]$, the expert~$m$ believes that others believe him or her. 
For this, $m$ have to credibly transmit his or her knowledge. In fact, we may expect that unsupported information or arguments will have little effect 
on~$\hat{\bm\mu}_{t}$. In particular, this implies that opportunities for manipulative behavior are limited. 
Moreover, when a manipulation has an effect on the price, it becomes profitable for everyone (including the manipulator) to reliably negate the manipulative information if possible. If $m$ uses manipulative information to initiate local fluctuations of the price and expects 
that it will eventually be reliably negated,
then \ref{j1} and \ref{j2} remain true. 
Another reason for non-manipulative behavior and mutual trust among experts could be that, in practice, transmitting manipulative information may involve falsification of scientific research or serious medical consequences.
We also note that there is an extensive literature on manipulation in normal prediction 
markets: see, for example,~\cite{HaOpPo2006,JiSa2012}.







Further, we note that $m$ may have information that he or she believes to be initially shared among substantial part of the experts in~$\bm e$. For example, in the experiment~\cite{AlKiPf2009} described in Section~\ref{subsec:emp_evid}, such information may consist of signals that develop skills in Bayesian inference. Such background knowledge may not be reflected in $\alpha^t_m\mathbin{@} A^t_m$, but we may expect that it will be aggregated by $\hat{\bm\mu}_{t}$ (as in the regular market) due to
a significant cumulative impact of the knowledgeable experts. 
In other words, we may expect that the collective intelligence will combine two mechanisms: the principle outlined in Section~\ref{subsec:sr_theory} will lead to the exchange of critical information between experts, and
the mechanism~\cite{FeFoPe2005} described in Section~\ref{subsec:pen_model} will be responsible for 
accumulating basic background knowledge. To be more specific, we note that in the $xyz$-example described in Section~\ref{subsec:gen_rem} and formalized as Example~\ref{ex:xyz}, each piece of information is shared among half of the experts and each expert initially has some guess of the others' knowledge. This looks rather like an extreme example of background knowledge. On the other hand, the $xyz$-example modified as Example~\ref{ex:xyz_sr} illustrates how few informed experts can share critical information with numerous ignorant agents.
Finally, we come to the following conclusion.
\begin{Con}\label{con:final}
There is no contradiction in supposing that if we publicly offer the experts to share their information and to vote as though orders will be resolved in accordance with~$\bm\omega$, then
the collective intelligence will be $\mu$-efficient. 
In particular,
we may expect that~\eqref{eq:final_state_M0} will be true. Here, $\hat{\bm\mu}_T$ may be interpreted as a probability of 
$\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ that is generated by the information shared by the experts during $[t_0,T]$ and combined with their cumulative basic background knowledge that determines how they interpret this information. 
\end{Con}
We have achieved the goal stated in Section~\ref{subsec:goal}.












\section{Details}\label{sec:details}
Here we return to the consideration of our data-driven model of conventional CDA markets. 
We discuss important details and suggest directions for future research.
\subsection{Concerning market dynamics}\label{subsec:market_dyn}
We begin with the fact that there are sporting outcomes in~\cite{Data2019} that do not give as good a picture as we see in Figure~\ref{fig:mu_sgm_gr}.
First, after the corresponding estimate~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ has stabilized, it may be shifted one more time: the announcement of the starting lineups may break condition~\ref{A2_2} inherited by Assumption~\ref{M_0} from Assumption~\ref{asmp:A2}. 
Second, in some cases we can see a picture that is even more severely distorted. The latter is caused by the fact 
that applying the function~$\log L$ defined by~\eqref{eq:logL}, we rely on an additional implicit assumption that the censoring mechanism in~$\log L$ is non-informative.
This assumption actually requires a further detailed analysis:  
its violation may
cause the corresponding estimate to be biased (see, e.g., the survey~\cite{LeElAf1997}). 
Below we refine our model by relaxing the assumption of non-informativeness
and introducing a new assumption concerning additional information that can be elicited from experts' decisions. 
We show
that the refined model is in good agreement with the data~\cite{Data2019}, and use it to explain the market dynamics.

First, we present a relaxed version of the aforementioned implicit assumption that the censoring mechanism $\theta^\pm_{\lambda_t}(q)$ in~\eqref{eq:logL} 
adds no information to inequalities~\eqref{eq:theta_plus} and~\eqref{eq:theta_minus}. Instead, we only assume that 
if we know a price an expert has chosen, but do not know whether the corresponding order is a buy or sell order, then we have no additional
information about the random variable that has generated the expert's belief. 
\begin{Asmp}[a refinement of Assumption~\ref{M_1}]\label{M_1_ext}
Let $t \in [t_0,T]$. Fix an arbitrary price $q\in (0,1)$. 
Let $v$ runs over the votes constituting $V^+_t(q)$ and $V^-_t(q)$. 
We assume that regardless of the choice of~$q$, the corresponding
beliefs~$\pi_v$
are i.i.d.
with distribution $\mathcal{N}_{[0,1]}(\mu,\sigma_t^2)$, where $\mu$ and $\sigma_t$ are the same as in Assumption~\ref{M_1}.
\end{Asmp}
This assumption can be interpreted as a simplified formalization of the following argument. An expert choose a price largely on the basis of the current market state, and after that 
he or she decides, on the basis of his or her belief, whether the order will be a buy or sell order.

The next assumption formalizes the fact that if we know the price an expert has chosen, then his or her choice between a buy and sell order contains additional information about his or her belief.
\begin{Asmp}[a refinement of Assumption~\ref{M_2}]\label{M_2_ext}
Let $v$ be one of the votes that has been placed by an expert $n\in\bm e$ at time $\tau \in [t_0,T]$ at some price $q\in (0,1)$.
Consider two possible orders that may have generated $v$:
$$
o^+_\tau \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \bigl(\tfrac{1}{q}, q, n\bigr)^+\quad\mbox{and}\quad o^-_\tau \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \bigl(\tfrac{1}{1-q}, q, n\bigr)^-.
$$
If $n$ has chosen $o^{\pm}_\tau$, then 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conv_comb}
\rho\bigl(o_\tau^\pm\bigr)\, U^\pm(\pi_v, q, \lambda_n^\tau) + \bigl(1-\rho\bigl(o_\tau^\pm\bigr)\bigr) \ge \rho\bigl(o_\tau^\mp\bigr)\, U^\mp(\pi_v, q, \lambda_n^\tau) + \bigl(1-\rho\bigl(o_\tau^\mp\bigr)\bigr)
\end{equation}
for certain values $\rho\bigl(o_\tau^\pm\bigr) \in [0,1]$.
\end{Asmp}
The meaning of this assumption becomes clear if we recall that 
\begin{itemize}
    \item according to Assumption~\ref{M_1}, each vote has been generated by a separate order;
    \item according to Assumption~\ref{M_2}, each expert believes that each of his or her new orders will be either completely matched or completely unmatched;
    \item we always have $u(b \mid \lambda, b, L)=1$;
   
    \item $U^\pm$ are functions for calculating the expected utility of fully matched orders.
\end{itemize}


If just before $\tau$ we have $S^{\pm}_{\tau-}(q) < S^{\mp}_{\tau-}(q)$, then we should set $\rho\bigl(o_\tau^\pm\bigr) =1$ (because our assumptions imply that if a new order is at least partially matched, then the expert who has placed it has no option but to believe that it will be fully matched). 
In other cases, $\rho\bigl(o_\tau^\pm\bigr)$ may depend on the difference $S^{+}_{\tau-}(q) - S^{-}_{\tau-}(q)$, 
on the remaining time $T-\tau$, on the price~$q$, etc.
We simplify the situation applying the same averaging approach that we have employed to introduce~$\sigma_t$ and~$\lambda_t$: we spread, over each interval $[t_0, t]$, certain invariable
probabilities of unmatched votes being matched.
\begin{Asmp}[averaging of $\rho$]\label{M_4}
Fix $t \in [t_0,T]$. If $v \in \mathcal{V}_t$, then the corresponding matching probabilities in Assumption~\ref{M_2_ext} can be calculated as follows:  
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rho}
\rho\bigl(o_\tau^\pm\bigr) = 
\begin{cases}
\rhofn_t^\pm(q),& S^{\pm}_{\tau-}(q) \ge S^{\mp}_{\tau-}(q);\\
1,& S^{\pm}_{\tau-}(q) < S^{\mp}_{\tau-}(q),
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $\rhofn_t^+$ and $\rhofn_t^-$ are respectively increasing and decreasing functions from~$(0,1)$ to~$(0,1)$.
\end{Asmp}

Suppose we are under the described model with given parameters $\mu$, $\sigma_t$, and $\lambda_t = \lmd(\mu,\sigma_t)$. 
Fix a price $q\in(0,1)$ and suppose we have, just before $\tau \in [t_0,t]$, the corresponding volumes~$V^\pm_{\tau-}(q)$.
Suppose we are going to add to them a new vote~$v$ with $\pi_v$ generated by $\mathcal{N}_{[0,1]}(\mu,\sigma_t^2)$.
If $\pi_v \ge \theta^-_{\lambda_t}(q)$, then we have $$U^-(\pi_v, q, \lambda_t) \le 1 < U^+(\pi_v, q, \lambda_t)$$ 
(see Proposition~\ref{lem:cenz_mech}) and the same is true for the convex combinations of these expressions and~$1$ in inequalities~\eqref{eq:conv_comb}.
Thus, we have to add the vote~$v$ to the votes for $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$ and set ${V^+_\tau(q) = V^+_{\tau-}(q) + 1}$. 
Similarly, if 
$\pi_v\le \theta^+_{\lambda_t}(q)$, 
then we have to add~$v$ to the votes for~$\bm\omega \mapsto 0$
and set ${V^-_\tau(q) = V^-_{\tau-}(q) + 1}$.
Next, if 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eq_zn}
\pi_v \in \big(\theta^+_{\lambda_t}(q), \theta^-_{\lambda_t}(q)\big),
\end{equation} 
then both $U^\pm(\pi_v, q, \lambda_t)$ are greater than~$1$ and according 
to~\eqref{eq:conv_comb} and~\eqref{eq:rho}
there is an incentive to use $v$ for maintaining the balance between supply and demand. For example, if $S^{\pm}_{\tau-}(q) < S^{\mp}_{\tau-}(q)$ and $\rhofn_t^\mp(q)$ is sufficiently small, then we have to increase~$V^\pm_\tau(q)$. 


We refer to intervals~\eqref{eq:eq_zn} as 
\emph{equilibrium zones}.
If $q$ is not too far from~$\mu$ and the probability measure $F_{\mu,\sigma_t}\big(\theta^-_{\lambda_t}(q)\big) - F_{\mu,\sigma_t}\big(\theta^+_{\lambda_t}(q)\big)$ of the corresponding equilibrium zone is sufficiently large, then a situation will arise 
where the Markov chain ${S^{+}_{\tau}(q) - S^{-}_{\tau}(q)}$ does not stray too far from zero and repeatedly vanishes as 
the operational time ${V^{+}_{\tau}(q) + V^{-}_{\tau}(q)}$ increases. A mathematically rigorous description and proof of this effect may be a subject of future research.
Here we demonstrate it with an example by using stochastic simulation. 
In the following calls made in \path{CI.RData} from~\cite{Data2019}, we set $\mu = 0.261$, $\sigma_t = 0.003$, and place $5000$ votes at the price $q = 0.247$ with 
$\rhofn_t^+(q) = 0.01$ and $\rhofn_t^-(q) = 0.999$ in accordance with our model. 
\begin{samepage}
\begin{verbatim}
    sdHist <- GetDemSuppForq(q = 0.247, mu = 0.261, sgm = 0.003, 
                             rhoPls = 0.01, rhoMns = 0.999, 
                             nVotes = 5000, seed = 2022)
    PlotDemSuppDiff(sdHist)   # requires ggplot2
\end{verbatim}
\end{samepage}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{supp_dem_diff.eps}
\caption{Difference between demand and supply.}
\label{fig:supp_dem_diff}
\end{figure}
The result is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:supp_dem_diff}: the non-equilibrium state tends to occur, but cannot persist for long.
This case is borderline: if we slightly increase $\mu-q$ or $\rhofn_t^+(q)$, then the observed tendency toward equilibrium will be immediately broken. On the other hand, the closer~$q$ is 
to~$\mu$, the more freedom we have in choosing~$\rhofn_t^\pm(q)$ so that the tendency toward equilibrium remains.

Thus, we can model a range of prices around~$\mu$ where the differences between demand and supply repeatedly vanish. 
In light of this fact, it is interesting to discuss the dynamics of prices in real CDA mar\-kets. 
We recall that $Q$ is a grid of prices available for trading in such a market. The varying set $[q_\tau^-,q_\tau^+]\cap Q$ consists exactly of the prices that can accept both buy and sell orders, and traders use these prices for offers in the first place. 
When one of the boundary inequalities $S^{\pm}_{\tau}(q_\tau^\pm) < S^{\mp}_{\tau}(q_\tau^\pm)$ turns into equality, the interval $[q_\tau^-,q_\tau^+]$ extends in the corresponding direction. Conversely, this interval narrows when an equality $S^{+}_{\tau}(q) = S^{-}_{\tau}(q)$ breaks for some 
price $q \in (q_\tau^-,q_\tau^+)$, which becomes its new boundary. Thus, the intense dynamics of $q_\tau^\pm$ can be explained by the presence of a range of prices with the above-described tendency toward equilibrium. 

Using stochastic simulation, we now demonstrate that our model can reproduce real data with reasonable accuracy. 
Again, more detailed analysis may be a subject of further research.
We consider the table \verb+data12+ preloaded into \path{CI.RData}, which contains the trading history for a certain 
soccer event.
Suppose $\bm\omega$ represents
the draw outcome of this event and $t$ is the first moment when the corresponding total volume~${\sum_{q\in Q}\bigl(V^+_t(q) + V^-_t(q)\bigr)}$ 
becomes greater than $15000$ dollars. We choose certain parameters $\mu$ and $\sigma_t$ together with certain functions $\rhofn^\pm_t$.
For each ${q\in Q}$, we generate $\lfloor V^+_t(q) + V^-_t(q) \rfloor$ votes in accordance with our model with the chosen parameters 
and compare the results with the real volumes $V^\pm_t(q)$. 
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.6]{rho_pm_12_3_new.eps}
\caption{Model parameters.}
\label{fig:mu_sgm_rho_12_3}
\end{figure}
The chosen parameters 
are visualized in Figure~\ref{fig:mu_sgm_rho_12_3}: we see a part of the corresponding density function as well as the functions $\rhofn^\pm_t$ that have the form
$$
\rhofn^\pm_t(q) = \expit\bigl(k_t^{\pm}\bigl(\logit(q) - d_t^\pm\bigr)\bigr),\quad k_t^{\pm},d_t^\pm \in \mathbb{R},
$$
where 
$\logit\colon (0,1) \to \mathbb{R}$
and
$\expit\colon \mathbb{R} \to (0,1)$
are the increasing functions defined by the formulas
$$
\logit(q) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \log\frac{q}{1-q}\quad\mbox{and}\quad \expit(x) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \frac{1}{1+e^{-x}}.
$$
Concerning the results of generating data, they can be obtained by making the call 
\begin{verbatim}
    # reproduces first 15000 votes (dollars) at the draw outcome in
    # UEFA Champions League, 23 July 2013, Hafnarfjordur vs. Ekranas
    ModelExample()
\end{verbatim}
from \path{CI.RData} and
the main body
of them is presented in Table~\ref{tbl:model_ex}: we see a similarity between the real and generated data, which dramatically increases when we 
smooth out fluctuations by summing some volumes over neighboring prices. 
\begin{table
\caption{Results of generating data.}
\label{tbl:model_ex}
\begin{tabular}{@{}ccccccccc@{}}
\toprule[1.0pt]
       & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Real data}                                                                               & \multicolumn{4}{c}{Model data}                                                                      \\
$q$    & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V^+$}                            & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V^-$}                            & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V^+$}                        & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$V^-$}                        \\ \cmidrule(r){1-1}\cmidrule(lr){2-5}\cmidrule(l){6-9}
0.2222 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{13.4}                             & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.9}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{14}                           & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0}                            \\
0.2326 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{243.7}                            & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{243}                          & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0}                            \\
0.2381 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{50.1}                             & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{50}                           & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0}                            \\
0.2439 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{282.2}                            & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{268}                          & \multicolumn{2}{c}{14}                           \\ \cmidrule(lr){2-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-7}\cmidrule(l){8-9} 
0.2500 & 571.8  & \multirow{2}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\1146.0}}                     & 280.3  & \multirow{2}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\541.1}}                      & 638  & \multirow{2}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\1142}}                     & 214  & \multirow{2}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\545}}                      \\
0.2532 & 574.2  &                                             & 260.9  &                                             & 504  &                                           & 331  &                                           \\ \cmidrule(lr){2-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-7}\cmidrule(l){8-9} 
0.2564 & 1075.9 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\multirow{4}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\3385.1}}} & 1065.3 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\multirow{4}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\ 6733.5}}} & 1013 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\multirow{4}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\3407}}} & 1128 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{\multirow{4}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\6710}}} \\
0.2597 & 1236.4 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                        & 2389.4 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                        & 1240 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                      & 2385 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                      \\
0.2632 & 801.4  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                        & 2300.0 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                        & 819  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                      & 2282 & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                      \\
0.2667 & 271.5  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                        & 978.7  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                        & 335  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                      & 915  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{}                      \\ \cmidrule(lr){2-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-7}\cmidrule(l){8-9} 
0.2703 & 75.7   & \multirow{4}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\245.6}}                      & 434.3  & \multirow{4}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\1903.6}}                     & 137  & \multirow{4}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\247}}                      & 373  & \multirow{4}{*}{\makecell{$\sum=$\\1901}}                     \\
0.2740 & 86.6   &                                             & 453.0  &                                             & 43   &                                           & 496  &                                           \\
0.2778 & 0.0    &                                             & 622.5  &                                             & 25   &                                           & 597  &                                           \\
0.2817 & 83.4   &                                             & 393.7  &                                             & 42   &                                           & 435  &                                           \\ \cmidrule(lr){2-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-7}\cmidrule(l){8-9} 
0.2857 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{13.2}                             & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                          & \multicolumn{2}{c}{13}                           \\
0.2985 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{360.8}                            & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                          & \multicolumn{2}{c}{360}                          \\
0.3125 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{337.8}                            & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                          & \multicolumn{2}{c}{337}                          \\
0.3226 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{2.5}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{5.3}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                          & \multicolumn{2}{c}{7}                            \\
0.3279 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                              & \multicolumn{2}{c}{69.1}                             & \multicolumn{2}{c}{0.0}                          & \multicolumn{2}{c}{69}                           \\ \bottomrule[1.0pt]
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

We note that the parameters presented in Figure~\ref{fig:mu_sgm_rho_12_3} have been adjusted manually. The algorithm we apply in Section~\ref{subsec:mod_meets_dat} and
describe in Section~\ref{subsec:econ_equil} does not take the additional model assumptions into account, and this may have a significant impact on the results, provided transaction prices are far from~$\tfrac{1}{2}$. In future research we need to adapt the algorithm in accordance with the extended model. This may be easier in the setting where prices are provided by an automated market maker and matching probabilities equal~$1$. 
More specifically, consider the self-re\-solv\-ing scenario
and suppose there is an automated market maker that provides, at each time $t\in [t_0,T]$, two prices $q^+_t$ and $q^-_t$ for placing, with immediate matching, one vote for or against $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$, respectively.
We may expect that the greater an expert's information advantage is, the sooner taking this advantage will become more preferable for him or her than waiting for 
the reduction of his or her comparative ignorance. This means that the significance of the information being shared will decrease with time.
Thus, we may expect $\pi_v$ to exhibit damped oscillations
in the manner similar to what we have observed in conventional prediction markets. This leads us to believe that we can rely on almost the same model assumptions. 
Namely, we can 
stay with the normality assumption~\ref{M_1}
and describe, in the same manner as in Assumptions~\ref{M_2} and~\ref{M_2_ext}, the choice between
\begin{itemize}
    \item inaction,
    \item placing one vote for $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$ at $q^+_t$,
    \item placing one vote for $\bm\omega \mapsto 0$ at $q^-_t$,
\end{itemize}
while both matching probabilities
equal~$1$. 
It is also possible to adapt the function $\log L$ accordingly. 
Concerning the market maker implementation, we refer to the article~\cite{OtSa2012} which describes a customizable and dynamically controllable market maker. 
We believe that we can customize such a market maker so that the estimate~$\hat{\bm\mu}_{t}$ will quickly converge to the parameter~$\mu$ within our model
(in particular, it will be possible to verify this by using stochastic simulation). This will lead us to the implementation of the collective intelligence described in Section~\ref{subsec:sr_reality}.








   
   

 









 

 






\subsection{Concerning economic equilibrium}\label{subsec:econ_equil}
In the papers~\cite{Ma2006,Gje2004,WoZi2006,OtSo2007}, the authors compare the equilibrium price and a central tendency of the distribution 
of traders' beliefs in a prediction market. We also provide an equation that postulates that~$\mu$ is the equilibrium price in a certain strong sense.
This equation produces the function~$\lmd(\cdot,\cdot)$ being utilized in all our calculations.

In the previous section, we see that our model gives a range of equilibrium prices where the differences ${S^{+}_{\tau}(q) - S^{-}_{\tau}(q)}$ exhibit bounded oscillations near~$0$, or, what is the same, the ratios
${S^{+}_{\tau}(q)}/{S^{-}_{\tau}(q)}$ exhibit damped oscillations near~$1$. The latter may be interpreted to mean that for each such $q$ the frequencies of 
votes for $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ and votes for $\bm\omega\mapsto 0$ are in the ratio of $q$ to $1-q$. We now choose the ``most equilibrium'' price and postulate that it coincides with~$\mu$. Namely, we write an equation that can be interpreted as follows. For 
the price~$\mu$,
the frequencies of votes that can \emph{only} be for $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$,
and votes that can \emph{only} be for $\bm\omega\mapsto 0$,
have to be in the ratio of $\mu$ to $1-\mu$.
In accordance with Assumptions~\ref{M_2}, \ref{M_2_ext}, and Proposition~\ref{lem:cenz_mech}, $v$~cannot be placed at a price~$q$ as a vote for $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ iff 
$\pi_v \le \theta^+_{\lambda_n^\tau}(q)$, and it cannot be vote for $\bm\omega\mapsto 0$ 
iff $\pi_v \ge \theta^-_{\lambda_n^\tau}(q)$.
In the following proposition, we assume the existence of a common parameter~$\lambda < 0$, 
write our strong equilibrium equation, and derive 
the function $\lmd(\cdot,\cdot)$ from it.
\begin{Le}
Consider the function
$$
R(\lambda \mid \mu, \sigma) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq 
\frac{1-\mu}{\mu}\,
\frac{1-F_{\mu,\sigma}\bigl(\theta^-_{\lambda}(\mu)\bigr)}{F_{\mu,\sigma}\bigl(\theta^+_{\lambda}(\mu)\bigr)},
$$
where $\lambda < 0$, $0<\mu<1$, and $\sigma > 0$.
   
    Fix $\mu \ne \frac{1}{2}$. There exists $d_\mu > 0$ such that for any fixed $\sigma \in (0, d_\mu)$, the equation 
        \begin{equation}\label{eq:log_R}
        \log R(\lambda\mid \mu, \sigma) = 0
        \end{equation}
        has a unique negative solution, which we denote by $\lmd(\mu,\sigma)$. It satisfies~\eqref{eq:lmd_prop}.
   
\end{Le}
\begin{proof}
We suppose $\mu<\tfrac{1}{2}$. The considerations for $\mu>\tfrac{1}{2}$ are symmetrical.
Denote $G_{\mu,\sigma}(x)\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \frac{f_{\mu,\sigma}(x)}{F_{\mu,\sigma}(x)}$.
The proofs of the following three relations are simple and we omit them:
    \begin{gather}\label{eq:d_G}
    \partial_x G_{\mu,\sigma}(x)<0;\\[8pt]\label{eq:d_theta}
   
   
    |\partial_\lambda\theta^+_{\lambda}(\mu)|<|\partial_\lambda\theta^-_{\lambda}(\mu)|\quad\mbox{for}\quad\mu<\tfrac{1}{2}
   
   
    \\[8pt]\label{eq:lim_W}
    a<\mu< b,\quad b-\mu>\mu-a \quad\Longrightarrow\quad
   
   
    \frac{1-F_{\mu,\sigma}(b)}{F_{\mu,\sigma}(a)} \searrow 0\quad\mbox{as}\quad \sigma \searrow 0.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    \end{gather}
Since
$$
    R(0\mid \mu, \sigma) = \frac{1-\mu}{\mu} > 1\quad\mbox{and}\quad 
    \lim_{\lambda \to -\infty} R(\lambda\mid \mu, \sigma) = 
    \frac{1-\mu}{\mu}\,\frac{1-F_{\mu,\sigma}(1)}{F_{\mu,\sigma}(0)},
   
$$
relation~\eqref{eq:lim_W} implies that equation~\eqref{eq:log_R} 
has at least one solution, provided $\sigma$ is not too large.
Relation~\eqref{eq:d_theta} implies that 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tht_mu}
     {\theta}^-_{\lambda}(\mu) -\mu >  \mu - \theta^+_{\lambda}(\mu).
\end{equation}
Differentiating~$\log R$ and combining~\eqref{eq:d_G}, \eqref{eq:d_theta}, and~\eqref{eq:tht_mu}, we obtain
$$
\partial_\lambda \log R(\lambda\mid\mu,\sigma) 
= -\partial_\lambda\theta^+_{\lambda}(\mu)\,G_{\mu,\sigma}\bigl(\theta^+_{\lambda}(\mu)\bigr) -
\partial_\lambda\theta^-_{\lambda}(\mu)\,G_{\mu,\sigma}\bigl(2\mu - {\theta}^-_{\lambda}(\mu)\bigr) > 0.
$$
Thus, a solution of~\eqref{eq:log_R} is unique.
Finally, \eqref{eq:lim_W} and~\eqref{eq:tht_mu} imply~\eqref{eq:lmd_prop}. 
\end{proof}
Analyzing the functions $\log R$ and $\lmd(\cdot,\cdot)$ numerically and graphically (without rigorous analytical proofs), we may additionally infer
that
\begin{itemize}
    \item the closer $\mu$ is to $\frac{1}{2}$, the greater $d_\mu$ can be chosen;
    \item at least we have $d_\mu> \min(\mu,1-\mu)$;
    \item there exists a finite limit
    $$
        \lim_{\mu\to\frac{1}{2}} \lmd(\mu,\sigma) < 0,
    $$
    which can be taken as $\lmd\big(\tfrac{1}{2},\sigma\big)$.
\end{itemize}

We also note that in Assumption~\ref{M_2} we describe only how the experts compare trading actions with the inaction, and in fact it suffices in order for equation~\eqref{eq:log_R} to be meaningful. In Assumption~\ref{M_2_ext}, we additionally postulate how the experts compare buying and selling, and this
more detailed (but more restrictive) model allows us to consider an alternative equilibrium equation that can be interpreted as follows. If the price~$\mu$ accepts all orders with immediate matching, then the frequencies of votes for $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ and votes for $\bm\omega\mapsto 0$ will be in the ratio of $\mu$ to $1-\mu$. 
Namely, we can consider the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alt_eq_eq}
\frac{1-\mu}{\mu}\,
\frac{1-F_{\mu,\sigma}(\pi_{\mu,\lambda})}{F_{\mu,\sigma}(\pi_{\mu,\lambda})} = 1,
\end{equation}
where $\pi_{\mu,\lambda}$ is a unique solution of the equation
$$
U^+(\pi,\mu,\lambda) = U^-(\pi,\mu,\lambda).
$$
The analysis of equation~\eqref{eq:alt_eq_eq} is another subject of future research.

Now we discuss the details of the algorithm we apply in Section~\ref{subsec:mod_meets_dat}.
We define
\begin{equation}\label{eq:arg_max_logL}
    \bigl(\hat\mu(\lambda), \hat\sigma(\lambda)\bigr) \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq \argmax_{(\mu,\sigma)} \log L(\mu,\sigma \mid\lambda)
\end{equation}
and consider the equation  
\begin{equation}\label{eq:outer_eq}
\lambda = \lmd\bigl(\hat\mu(\lambda), \hat\sigma(\lambda)\bigr),\quad\lambda < 0.
\end{equation}
We can observe that when we increase $|\lambda|$, the value $\hat\sigma(\lambda)$ decreases together with the absolute value of the right side of~\eqref{eq:outer_eq}. 
Thus, the left and right sides of equation~\eqref{eq:outer_eq} vary in different directions and its solution~$\hat\lambda_t$ is a balance point where they coincide.
Finally, we set
$$
\hat{\bm\mu}_t = \hat\mu\bigl(\hat\lambda_t\bigr)\quad\mbox{and}\quad\hat{\sigma}_t = \hat\sigma\bigl(\hat\lambda_t\bigr).
$$
In order to compute $\lmd(\mu,\sigma)$ as a solution of~\eqref{eq:log_R}, 
to compute~\eqref{eq:arg_max_logL}, and to solve~\eqref{eq:outer_eq}, we use Nelder--Mead method~\cite{NeMe1965} of optimization. 

\subsection{Concerning utilities}\label{subsec:util}
We now describe how the double relativity principle have been deduced from the data.
This provides further justification for our choice of utility. 

First, we have begun with the assumption that
each expert in $\bm e$ places
$b_n$ votes by means of a single order, where
$b_n = b$ are the same for all the experts, and without loss of generality we have set
$b=1$.
Second, we have assumed that having been completely matched, each such order is at least better than inaction in terms of the standard exponential utility 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:exp_u}
u(x\mid\alpha) = -\frac{e^{-\alpha x}}{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
Third, we have assumed that the voters for $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$ have one and the same risk attitude $\alpha = \alpha^+$, 
while the voters for $\bm\omega\mapsto 0$ have $\alpha = \alpha^-$.

Under those preliminary assumptions, we have considered our data for 
various sporting outcomes~$\bm\omega$.
We have deduced that 
for each $t$ from the corresponding observation 
interval $[t_1, t_2]$ and for each $q\in Q$, we have $V^+_t(q)$ inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pi_exp_pls}
\pi_v > \frac{1-\exp\bigl({-\alpha^+}\bigr)}{1 - \exp\Bigl({-\tfrac{\alpha^+}{q}}\Bigr)}
\end{equation}
and $V^-_t(q)$ inequalities
\begin{equation}\label{eq:pi_exp_mns}
\pi_v < \frac{1 - \exp\frac{\alpha^- q}{1-q}}{1 - \exp\frac{\alpha^-}{1-q}}.
\end{equation}
Assuming the normality of~$\pi_v$ and applying the log-likelihood function with the censoring mechanism given by~\eqref{eq:pi_exp_pls} and~\eqref{eq:pi_exp_mns}, we have obtained
estimates $\hat\mu_t(\alpha^+,\alpha^-)$ related to various~$\bm\omega$.
We have observed that in order for $\hat\mu_{t_2}(\alpha^+,\alpha^-)$ to look like the central value of fluctuations of $q^c_t$, we need to 
choose $\alpha^\pm$ such that $\alpha^\pm < 0$ and 
$\frac{\alpha^+}{\alpha^-}\approx \frac{q^c_{t_2}}{1-q^c_{t_2}}$.
But the prices $q \in Q$ with major volumes $V^\pm_t(q)$ are similar to each other, and $q^c_{t_2}$ is among them and
may be considered as their rough average. This has prompted us to substitute 
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alpha_subst}
\alpha^+ = \lambda q\quad\mbox{and}\quad\alpha^- = \lambda (1-q),
\end{equation} 
where $\lambda$ is a negative value. We note at once that such substitution transforms the expressions 
in~\eqref{eq:pi_exp_pls} and~\eqref{eq:pi_exp_mns} to $\theta^+_{\lambda}(q)$ and $\theta^-_{\lambda}(q)$, respectively.

We can explicitly derive the double relativity principle from~\eqref{eq:alpha_subst}. Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the set of all lotteries. 
For a lottery~$L$ generated by a matched vote, we have 
either $M_L-m_L = \tfrac{1}{q}$ if the vote is for $\bm\omega \mapsto 1$, or 
$M_L-m_L = \tfrac{1}{1-q}$ if the vote is for $\bm\omega \mapsto 0$.
Taking this into account, we can see that comparing a matched order with the inaction by means of function~\eqref{eq:exp_u} with parameters~\eqref{eq:alpha_subst} fits into a scheme where
an individual with a budget~$b$ compares lotteries 
\emph{within} each of the sets
$$
    \mathcal{L}(m, M) = \{L \in \mathcal{L} \mid m_L = m,\;M_L = M\} \cup \{L_b\},\quad m<b<M,
$$
by means of the corresponding utility function
$$
    u(x\mid \lambda, m, M) = -\frac{\exp \bigl(-\lambda\frac{x-m}{M-m}\bigr)}{\lambda},
	\quad \lambda \in \mathbb{R},\quad x\in [m, M].
$$
Thus, we have derived the first relativity from the data. This suffices to describe how an individual compares lotteries with his or her inaction~$L_b$, and to obtain the formulas for $\theta_\lambda^\pm(q)$ together with the log-likelihood function~\eqref{eq:logL} and equation~\eqref{eq:log_R}.

We now note that the inaction~$L_b$ is a single element of the intersection of the sets $\mathcal{L}(m, M)$, $m<b<M$, and its expected utility takes different values
$u(b\mid \lambda, m, M)$ in different sets $\mathcal{L}(m, M)$. In order to solve this problem, we have applied affine transformations to the functions $u(\cdot\mid \lambda, m, M)$ so that they 
become equal at~$b$ and the order within each set $\mathcal{L}(m, M)$ remains the same. This has led us to the second relativity and to the unified utility function~\eqref{eq:drp}, which is increasing for any $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ and describes how an individual compares any two lotteries in
$$
\mathcal{L}_b \buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq\!\!\! \bigcup_{m<b<M}\!\!\! \mathcal{L}(m, M).
$$
These lotteries may be from different sets $\mathcal{L}(m, M)$ and, in particular, we have got the opportunity 
to formulate the refined assumption~\ref{M_2_ext} (together with equation~\eqref{eq:alt_eq_eq} which needs further investigation).
Thus, the second relativity, which has a theoretical origin, is indirectly supported 
by the results of Section~\ref{subsec:market_dyn} (see Table~\ref{tbl:model_ex}).

Finally, we note that function~\eqref{eq:drp} satisfies the von Neumann--Morgenstern axioms within 
each of the convex sets $\mathcal{L}(m, M)$, $m<b<M$. A complete axiomatization of the double relativity principle may be a subject of future research.
In this regard, we note that the theory built in~\cite{Co1992} has certain similarities with our constructions: it takes into account \emph{security factors}~$m_L$ and \emph{potential
factors}~$M_L$ of lotteries $L\in\mathcal{L}$. Nevertheless, our function~\eqref{eq:drp} does not fit into the axioms of~\cite{Co1992}, which, in particular, do not highlight the role of the status quo lottery~$L_b$. On the other hand, the notion of \emph{the status quo bias} is also studied in the literature
(see, e.g., \cite{SaZe1988,YuOk2005}). It may be interesting to establish how our constructions are connected with those studies as well as with the prospect theory~\cite{KaTv1979}. 





\section{Acknowledgments}
We are grateful to I.~A.~Ibragimov, A.~Yu.~Kalinichenko, Yu.~V.~Matiyasevich, P.~A.~Mozolyako, A.~S.~Nesterov, D.~V.~Ponomarev, K.~S.~Ryadovkin, F.~A.~Sandomirskiy, N.~V.~Smorodina, and D.~M.~Spelnikov 
for fruitful discussions and valuable comments. 

\printbibliography
\end{document}




*******************************************************************************************************************************************















[END]


    Since \ref{md1} limits the market impact of each individual, the second assumption is reasonable, provided $\hat{\bm\mu}_{t}$ is sufficiently stable [THIS CAN BE ASSUMED ONLY FOR USUAL MARKET] and the expert~$m$ believes that 
    he/she cannot directionally influence on the others' mental probabilities by his/her trading actions. 
    Concerning the stability of $\hat{\bm\mu}_{t}$, Section~\ref{subsec:mod_meets_dat} justifies the existence of a suitable algorithm.
    Concerning the influence of trading on the others' probabilities, in Setting~\ref{sett:priv} of the experiment~\cite{AlKiPf2009} we can presumably see that unique information (belonging to a single expert) may be poorly transmitted through a market with~\ref{md1}. 
   

[END]


The expert~$m$ satisfies claim~\ref{j1} of the juncture if he/she believes the following: he/she can transmit signals $\alpha^t_m\mathbin{@} A^t_m$ such that
the market will aggregate his/her information and $\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ will be the best choice for $\pi_m^T(\bm\omega)$, provided the others 
trade relying on $\pi_n^t(\bm\omega)$ and 
also transmit their information directly. [NEED REVISION] These conditions mean that for the expert~$m$, trading in the self-resolving market differs from trading in a usual market only in that the participants (including the expert~$m$) transmit part of their information through another channel (choosing the signals $\alpha^t_n\mathbin{@} A^t_n$ so that they compensate the limitations of the market as an information channel). Therefore, 
the expert~$m$ will be expected to satisfy claim~\ref{j1} of the juncture if $\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ satisfies~\eqref{eq:final_state_M0} in a usual market. ... we can build such an algorithm... 4.4 and 4.5 ... as well as stability...


For the expert~$m$, claim~\ref{j1} of the juncture means the following: 
$m$ believes that if he/she publicly share his/her information, then the market will successfully aggregate it and $\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ will be the best choice for $\pi_m^T(\bm\omega)$. Since $m$ believes that the others satisfies the juncture, claim~\ref{j1} is reasonable for him/her, provided $m$ also believes that $\hat{\bm\mu}_{T}$ works fine when the experts trade relying on $\pi_n^t(\bm\omega)$ and when nothing contradicts model~\ref{M_3}.
We also need...














We consider a variant of assumption~\ref{M_0} for a self-resolving play-mo\-ney CDA-mar\-ket.
\begin{enumerate}[widest = M0\textsuperscript{sr}]
\myitem[M0\textsuperscript{sr}]\label{M_0SR}
Suppose we have a prediction market ...for $\bm e \subseteq \bm E$...that exists during $[t_0,T]$, generates data $V^{\pm}_t(q)$, and is resolved in accordance with 
$\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_T]$, where $\hat{\bm\mu}_T$ is elicited from $V^{\pm}_T(q)$ by means of a pre-announced algorithm. ...$b_n=b$... play-money...Then
we assume that we have \ref{A2}--\ref{A2_2} for $\bm e$.
\end{enumerate}
...
\begin{enumerate}[widest = TC]
    \myitem[TC
\end{enumerate}


For each market considered in this section, we assume that before it starts, each expert gets the same volume $b_n = b$ of play money that
can be employed in this market (and only in it): the experts are assumed to have an equal opportunity to affect the market.  

Next, we add to~\hyperref[A2]{PM2} an axiom that is a variety of the temporal coherence property.
An expert is temporal coherent if he/she cannot predict whether his/her belief will increase or decrease on average (see also the discussion in~\cite[23--26]{PaIn2009}). In Bayesian setting, this means that learning trees are martingales. 
In our pre-Ba\-ye\-si\-an language, temporal coherence between $t$ and $t_\infty$ can be formulated as follows.
\begin{enumerate}[widest = PM2\textsubscript{4}]
    \myitem[PM2\textsubscript{4}]\label{A2_4} For $n\in\bm E$ and $t\in[t_0,t_\infty]$, we have 
   
        $\pi_n^t\big(\bm\omega\big[\pi_n^{t_\infty}\big]\big) = \pi_n^t(\bm\omega).$
   
    It is assumed that the generator is called after~$t_\infty + \Delta$.
\end{enumerate}
We introduce a variant of pre-model~\hyperref[A2]{PM2} with an imaginable self-re\-sol\-ving play-mo\-ney CDA-mar\-ket with unlimited duration of existence.
\begin{enumerate}[widest = PM2\textsuperscript{sr}] 
    \myitem[PM2\textsuperscript{sr}]\label{PM2_SR} There is the possibility of an experiment 
    satisfying \ref{A2}--\ref{A2_4} where the market is resolved at $t_\infty+\Delta$ in accordance with $\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_{t_\infty}]$, where $\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ are elicited from $V^{\pm}_t(q)$ by means of a pre-announced algorithm.
\end{enumerate}
...
We consider a variant of assumption ... for a self-resolving play-mo\-ney CDA-mar\-ket.
\begin{enumerate}[widest = M0\textsuperscript{sr}]
\myitem[M0\textsuperscript{sr}]\label{M_0SR}
If we have a real prediction market that exists during $[t_0,T]$, generates data $V^{\pm}_t(q)$, and is resolved in accordance with 
$\bm\omega[\hat{\bm\mu}_T]$, then
we assume that we have \ref{A2}--\ref{A2_2} and \ref{A2_4}, where $\bm E = \bm e$.
\end{enumerate}
In the context of \ref{M_0SR}, assumption~\ref{A2_4} implies that at point~$t$ of experiment~\ref{M_0SR}, an expert~$n$ can assign a mental probability to 
the proposition $\bm\omega\big[\pi_n^{t_\infty}\big]$. Here we assume that such a proposition refers to the purely hypothetical situation where \emph{instead of}~\ref{M_0SR}, experiment~\ref{PM2_SR} has been started at the same point~$t_0$ and with ${\bm E = \bm e}$. 
It is assumed that the question in Definition~\ref{def:ment_prob} contains a complete description of the proposition being considered, which, in its turn, contains a description of a world where the proposition makes sense. Even when such a world is hypothetical, nothing prevents us from assuming that an expert still generates a system of preferences satisfying Assumption~\ref{A0}. Informally speaking, \ref{A2_4} within \ref{M_0SR} means that if the duration of the experiment became unlimited, then an expert could not predict how his/her current belief would change by time~$t_\infty$.

...in ... or in ... 
\begin{enumerate}[label = (\roman*), widest = (iii)]
    \item The expert~$m$ believes that the others trade relying on their probabilities of $\bm\omega\mapsto 1$: for any $n\in\bm E\setminus\{m\}$, the probabilities $\pi_n^t(\bm\omega)$ coincide with ... in ... or with in ...
\end{enumerate}









whether his/her belief would increase or decrease on average. 

The fact is that a description of this situation is a part of 
if we complement the question in Definition~\ref{def:ment_prob} with a description of this situation, then 
nothing will prevent us from assuming that an expert still generates a system of preferences satisfying Assumption~\ref{A0}.

that stands for 
``If, instead of~\ref{M_0SR}, experiment~\ref{PM2_SR} with $\bm E = \bm e$ was started at the same point~$t_0$, then the binary generator, called with~$\pi_n^{t_\infty}$, would return~$1$''.

and if, after $t_\infty+\Delta$, the binary generator was called with parameter~$\pi_n^{t_\infty}$, then it would 
return~$1$''.


... the sense of \ref{A2_4} in the context of \ref{M_0SR} ...




...It is common knowledge that if any expert $n\in\bm{E}$ participates in~\hyperref[A2]{PM2}
only as an observer, we still get 
$$\pi_n^{t_\infty} = \bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E\setminus\{n\}) = \bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E).$$

It is common knowledge that for any expert $n\in\bm{E}$ the following is true. 
In experiment~\hyperref[A2]{PM2} where~$n$ participates only as an observer, we still get 
$$\pi_n^{t_\infty} = \bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E\setminus\{n\}).$$  


\section{OLD!!!}
\subsection{Model assumptions: representativeness}
Let $\bm\omega$ be one of $576$ outcomes related to 24 soccer games mentioned above. Our data~\cite{Data2019} contain a part 
of the history of the corresponding prediction market. We can represent it as time series $V^{\pm}_t(q)$ of volumes in dollars or in cents (this does not affect anything), where $q$ runs over a finite (but quite dense)
grid $Q \subset (0,1)$ of all prices available for trading, and $t$ runs over an interval~$[t_1,t_2]$ (where changes of market state have been checked with frequency of approximately $1$~second). The first model assumption establishes a connection between the data and 
the population~$\bm E$ of all who may access the betting exchange. 
\begin{quote}
We assume that the time series $V^{\pm}_t(q)$, 
$q \in Q$, $t\in [t_1,t_2]$, are generated by an experiment from Definition~\ref{qDef} with $[t_0, \bm t] \supset [t_1,t_2]$. 
\end{quote}
This means the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$] Those experts who have generated our data, are sufficiently diverse to represent the whole population~$\bm E$, and relying on the subsequent model assumptions, we will be able to estimate $\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ via $V^{\pm}_t(q)$.
\item[$\diamond$] The experts have not received new information about~$\bm\omega$ during $[t_0,t_2]$.
\end{itemize}
These assumptions will be quite consistent if we consider our soccer data up to the moment when the starting lineups have been revealed. In the medical applications proposed below, these assumptions are also satisfied.
\subsection{Model assumptions: the distribution of beliefs} 
We assume that on each interval~$[t_0,t] \subset [t_0, t_2]$, beliefs~$\pi_v$ in Definition~\ref{muDef} may be considered as generated by a random variable with distribution
$\mathcal{N}\cii{[0,1]}\big(\bm\mu(\bm\omega,\bm E), \sigma_t^2\big)$. It is a modification of the corresponding normal distribution such that the density lying outside the unit interval, is reset to 
the points~$0$ and~$1$. Namely, its density function is 
$$
	\delta_0(x)\,F_{\bm\mu,\sigma_t}(0) + \mathds{1}\cii{[0,1]}(x)\, f_{\bm\mu,\sigma_t}(x) + \delta_1(x)\,(1-F_{\bm\mu,\sigma_t}(1)).
$$
Here $f_{\bm\mu,\sigma_t}$ and $F_{\bm\mu,\sigma_t}$ are the density and cumulative distribution functions of the corresponding normal distribution, and $\delta_x$ denotes the delta measure concentrated at a point~$x$. The parameter~$\sigma_t$ can be treated as a measure of 
the average experts' ignorance on the interval~$[t_0,t]$.
For empirical support of this model assumption, see, e.g.,~\cite[Figure~5]{WoZi2006}.

\subsection{Model assumptions: the double relativity principle}
Consider an expert with a current budget $b$ and a lottery with minimum and maximum possible results $m$ and $M$, respectively. 
If $m < b < M$ (i.e., we do not have a sure loss or win), then we suppose that the expert calculate the utility of the lottery as the expected value of the function
\begin{equation
	u(x\mid \lambda, b, m, M) = \frac{1-e^{-\lambda\frac{x-m}{M-m}}}{1-e^{-\lambda\frac{b-m}{M-m}}},\quad \lambda \in \mathbb{R},
\end{equation}
where $x$ runs over the interval $[m,M]$. We call this \emph{the double relativity principle}: the scale of lottery results~$x$ is considered relatively to $m$ and $M$, and the scale of utility is considered 
relatively to the expert's status quo (see the denominator in~\eqref{eq:drp}). We assume that all experts in $\bm E$ obey this principle.

We discuss the axioms for utility~\eqref{eq:drp} in the last section. This function fits neither 
into the classical von Neumann--Morgenstern theory nor into the existent theories~\cite{BeSa1987, Co1992, Sch2001} of lottery dependent utility. We also note that function~\eqref{eq:drp} remains consistent with Definition~\ref{def:ment_prob}, i.e. we still have 
Fact~\ref{rem:phys_prob_consist} and its consequences for experts with such utility. At the same time, ..





\subsection{Model assumptions: ...}
... $\lambda_n = \lambda_t$ ... $\lambda_t = \mathrm{lmd} (\mu, \sigma_t)$ ...


\section{(OLD!!!)Applications in medicine}
There are many examples \cite{PoNeNe2007, PfAl2010, Gr2010, Ge2011, DrPfAl2015, MeLoSi2016, KuHeHe2016, LiTuCh2016} of collective intelligence and prediction markets employed in medicine, epidemiology, and pharmacy. We can see that one of the approaches is based on the use of a play-money prediction market with real-money incentives for the best experts (see also the articles~\cite{PeLaGi2001, SeWo2004, RoNo2006}, which concern the effectiveness of play-money prediction markets). In this section we suppose that we deal with a play-money continuous double auction with real-money incentives. Here we do not discuss implementation of play money and a way of mapping incentives to them. Instead, we propose some ideas that, together with our results described above,   
may allow us to employ such a system for certain epidemiology and pharmacy objectives.

\subsection{Possible objectives}
If we have a real patient with a certain disease, we can expect that his/her condition will vary and the first model assumption will be seriously violated: such a situation will be too far from the conditions of the experiment from Definition~\ref{qDef}. Nevertheless, we describe situations where our model is expected to be consistent and very helpful. 
\begin{itemize}
	\item[$\diamond$] We may be interested in general dependencies between specific exposures and the probabilities of certain outcomes (as in cohort studies). If we reveal only these exposures at the beginning of voting, then the situation will remains stable 
	as in Definition~\ref{qDef}.
	\item[$\diamond$] We may be interested in a risk assessment (e.g., cancer risk) for a healthy person whose condition is \emph{not} expected to change during the voting process.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{Possible difficulties}
In both cases described above, we may encounter certain problems.
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\diamond$]
In the first case it seems unnatural to employ a real patient to determine the winners among the voters. For example, if we want to optimize a chemotherapy regimen, we cannot apply all its possible variations to real patients only to organize the corresponding prediction markets. In the second case we may encounter a similar difficulty if we want to figure out how the level of risk varies when medical recommendations vary and to choose the best recommendation for the person in question.
\item[$\diamond$] In both cases, the value of~$\bm\omega$ may be revealed after a very long time. This fact may dramatically reduce the motivation of the experts to participate in the voting process.
\item[$\diamond$] If an expert wins units (and money incentives as well) when a negative outcome occurs for a real patient, this may lead to significant ethical, psychological, and even legal issues. Moreover, the state independence of the experts may be violated that may, in its turn, lead to the violation of their calibration.
\end{itemize}
All these problems can be solved at once, provided we accept the key conclusions of the previous sections. 
If for a certain $t > t_0$, $\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ is a good approximation for 
$\bm p(\bm\omega,\bm E)$ and it is not possible to determine~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ by $q_t$, we can employ the conceptions of a virtual patient and
a virtual outcome. Namely, for any description~$\gamma_0$ of a real or virtual patient, we can
generate the outcome~$\bm\omega = 1$ 
with probability~$\hat{\bm\mu}_t$ (by means of a random number generator) and, after that, distribute gains and losses respectively.
Below we describe this idea in details. 
 





\subsection{...}
We can impose certain restrictions on actions of experts as well as on the available information about actions of others.
...best prices $q_t^{\pm}$ together with the corresponding ... 
$$
\min(A_t^{\pm}, b_n^t)
$$
...
$$
	A_t^{+}\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq q_t^+\big(S_t^-(q_t^{+})-S_t^+(q_t^{+})\big)\quad\mbox{and}\quad A_t^{-}\buildrel{}_\mathrm{def}\over=}%{\triangleq (1-q_t^{-})\big(S_t^+(q_t^{-})-S_t^-(q_t^{-})\big)
$$


\subsection{Virtual events

Consider a collection~$\gamma_0$ of hypothetical signals and a propositional variable~$\omega$
related to a certain hypothetical object or person (it may not exist in reality). For example, we can think about a certain hypothetical patient with the history~$\gamma_0$ of his/her medical examination and a possible clinical outcome~$\omega$. 
Suppose we reveal~$\gamma_0$ to all experts in~$\bm E$ and offer them to play the following game. 
They are to imagine ..
[NOT DE FINETTI CONDITIONAL PROBABILITY (RATHER APOSTORIORY)!!! BUT COINCIDE WITH IT???]








\end{document}



