A budget feasible peer graded mechanism for iot-based crowdsourcing

  • Vikash Kumar Singh
  • Sajal Mukhopadhyay
  • Fatos XhafaEmail author
  • Aniruddh Sharma
Original Research


We develop and extend a line of recent works on the design of mechanisms for heterogeneous tasks assignment problem in ’crowdsourcing’. The budgeted market we consider consists of multiple task requesters and multiple IoT devices as task executers. In this, each task requester is endowed with a single distinct task along with the publicly known budget. Also, each IoT device has valuations as the cost for executing the tasks and quality, which are private. Given such scenario, the objective is to select a subset of IoT devices for each task, such that the total payment made is within the allotted quota of the budget while attaining a threshold quality. For the purpose of determining the unknown quality of the IoT devices we have utilized the concept of peer grading. In this paper, we have carefully crafted a truthful budget feasible mechanism for the problem under investigation that also allows us to have the true information about the quality of the IoT devices. Further, we have extended the set-up considering the case where the tasks are divisible in nature and the IoT devices are working collaboratively, instead of, a single entity for executing each task. We have designed the budget feasible mechanisms for the extended versions. The simulations are performed in order to measure the efficacy of our proposed mechanism.


Crowdsourcing IoT devices Truthful Budget feasible Peer grading Shapley value 



We would like to thanks the research students and faculty members of the Department of CSE, NIT Durgapur for their valuable suggestions during the course of this work. Further, we would like to thank Prof. Y. Narahari and members of the Game Theory Lab. at IISc Bangalore for their suggestions and directions. Finally, we thank the Government of India Ministry of Human Resource Development for their Institute scholarship fund given to the Ph.D. scholars.


  1. Alfaro LD, Shavlovsky M, Polychronopoulos V (2016) Incentives for truthful peer grading. CoRR arxiv:1604.03178
  2. Assadi S, Hsu J, Jabbari S (2015) Online assignment of heterogeneous tasks in crowdsourcing markets. CoRR arxiv:1508.03593
  3. Bhat S, Padmanabhan D, Jain S, Narahari Y (2016) A truthful mechanism with biparameter learning for online crowdsourcing: (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, AAMAS ’16, pp 1385–1386. Accessed Jan 2019
  4. Chatzimilioudis G, Konstantinidis A, Laoudias C, Zeinalipour-Yazti D (2012) Crowdsourcing with smartphones. IEEE Internet Comput 16(5):36–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cormen TH, Leiserson CE, Rivest RL, Stein C (2009) Introduction to algorithms. MIT press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniel F, Kucherbaev P, Cappiello C, Benatallah B, Allahbakhsh M (2018) Quality control in crowdsourcing: a survey of quality attributes, assessment techniques, and assurance actions. ACM Comput Surv 51(1):7:1–7:40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duan Z, Tian L, Yan M, Cai Z, Han Q, Yin G (2017) Practical incentive mechanisms for iot-based mobile crowdsensing systems. IEEE Access 5:20383–20392. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fatima SS, Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (2008) A linear approximation method for the Shapley value. Artif Intell 172(14):1673–1699. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Feng Z, Zhu Y, Zhang Q, Ni LM, Vasilakos AV (2014) TRAC: truthful auction for location-aware collaborative sensing in mobile crowdsourcing. In: IEEE INFOCOM 2014—IEEE conference on computer communications, Toronto, pp 1231–1239.
  10. Gao L, Hou F, Huang J (2015a) Providing long-term participation incentive in participatory sensing. In: 2015 IEEE conference on computer communications (INFOCOM), Kowloon, pp 2803–2811.
  11. Gao Y, Chen Y, Liu KJR (2015b) On cost-effective incentive mechanisms in microtask crowdsourcing. IEEE Trans Comput Intell AI Games 7(1):3–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goel G, Nikzad A, Singla A (2014) Mechanism design for crowdsourcing markets with heterogeneous tasks. In: Proceedings of the second AAAI conference on human computation and crowdsourcing, HCOMP 2014, Pittsburgh, 2–4 Nov 2014Google Scholar
  13. Gong X, Shroff N (2018) Incentivizing truthful data quality for quality-aware mobile data crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the eighteenth ACM international symposium on mobile ad hoc networking and computing, ACM, New York, Mobihoc ’18, pp 161–170.
  14. Howe J (2006) The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Mag 14(6):1–4. Accessed Jan 2019
  15. Jain S, Ghalme G, Bhat S, Gujar S, Narahari Y (2016) A deterministic mab mechanism for crowdsourcing with logarithmic regret and immediate payments. In: Proceedings of the 2016 international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Richland, AAMAS ’16, pp 86–94.
  16. Jain S, Gujar S, Bhat Zoeter O, Narahari Y (2018) A quality assuring, cost optimal multi-armed bandit mechanism for expertsourcing. Artif Intell 254:44–63. MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Kobayashi M, Morita H, Matsubara M, Shimizu N, Morishima A (2018) An empirical study on short- and long-term effects of self-correction in crowdsourced microtasks. HCOMP. The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Press, California, USA, pp 79–87Google Scholar
  18. Lee JS, Hoh B (2010a) Dynamic pricing incentive for participatory sensing. Elsevier J Pervasive Mob Comput 6(6):693–708. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee JS, Hoh B (2010b) Sell your experiences: a market mechanism based incentive for participatory sensing. In: 2010 IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communications (PerCom), Mannheim, Germany, pp 60–68.
  20. Li Y, Zhao Y, Ishak S, Song H, Wang N, Yao N (2018) An anonymous data reporting strategy with ensuring incentives for mobile crowd-sensing. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 9(6):2093–2107. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luo T, Das SK, Tan HP, Xia L (2016) Incentive mechanism design for crowdsourcing: an all-pay auction approach. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 7(3):35:1–35:26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maschler M, Solan E, Zamir S (2013) The Shapley value. In: Game theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 748–781.
  23. Mazlan N, Syed Ahmad SS, Kamalrudin M (2018) Volunteer selection based on crowdsourcing approach. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput 9(3):743–753. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nisan N, Roughgarden T, Tardos E, Vazirani VV (2007) Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Reddy S, Estrin D, Hansen M, Srivastava M (2010) Examining micro-payments for participatory sensing data collections. In: 12th international conference on ubiquitous computing (UbiComp), ACM, Copenhagen, pp 33–36.
  26. Roughgarden T (2016) CS269I: incentives in computer science (Stanford University course). Lecture #17: scoring rules and peer prediction (incentivizing honest forecasts and feedback)Google Scholar
  27. Shapley LS (1953) A value for n-person games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (eds) Contributions to the theory of games II. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  28. Singer Y (2010) Budget feasible mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 51st annual symposium on foundations of computer science, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, FOCS ’10, pp 765–774.
  29. Singh VK, Mukhopadhyay S, Xhafa F (2018a) A budget feasible peer graded mechanism for IoT-based crowdsourcing. CoRR. arxiv:1809.09315
  30. Singh VK, Mukhopadhyay S, Xhafa F, Sharma A (2018b) A budget feasible mechanism for hiring doctors in e-healthcare. In: 2018 IEEE 32nd international conference on advanced information networking and applications (AINA), Krakow, pp 785–792.
  31. Slivkins A, Vaughan JW (2014) Online decision making in crowdsourcing markets: theoretical challenges. SIGecom Exchanges 12(2):4–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tinati R, Madaan A, Hall W (2017) The role of crowdsourcing in the emerging internet-of-things. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, Geneva, WWW ’17 Companion, pp 1669–1672.
  33. Xu P, Srinivasan A, Sarpatwar KK, Wu K (2017) Budgeted online assignment in crowdsourcing markets: theory and practice. In: Proceedings of the 16th conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. International foundation for autonomous agents and multiagent systems, Richland, AAMAS’17, pp 1763–1765.
  34. Yuen M, King I, Leung K (2011) A survey of crowdsourcing systems. In: 3rd IEEE international conference on privacy, security, risk and trust and 3rd IEEE international conference on social computing, Boston, pp 766–773.
  35. Zhao D, Li X, Huadong M (2014) How to crowdsource tasks truthfully without sacrificing utility: Online incentive mechanisms with budget constraint. In: Proceeding of annual IEEE international conference on computer communications, ACM, Toronto, pp 173–184.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringNational Institute of Technology DurgapurDurgapurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.Qualcomm India Private Ltd.HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations