  We initiate the study of incentive-compatible forecasting competitions in
which multiple forecasters make predictions about one or more events and
compete for a single prize. We have two objectives: (1) to incentivize
forecasters to report truthfully and (2) to award the prize to the most
accurate forecaster. Proper scoring rules incentivize truthful reporting if all
forecasters are paid according to their scores. However, incentives become
distorted if only the best-scoring forecaster wins a prize, since forecasters
can often increase their probability of having the highest score by reporting
more extreme beliefs. In this paper, we introduce two novel forecasting
competition mechanisms. Our first mechanism is incentive compatible and
guaranteed to select the most accurate forecaster with probability higher than
any other forecaster. Moreover, we show that in the standard single-event,
two-forecaster setting and under mild technical conditions, no other
incentive-compatible mechanism selects the most accurate forecaster with higher
probability. Our second mechanism is incentive compatible when forecasters'
beliefs are such that information about one event does not lead to belief
updates on other events, and it selects the best forecaster with probability
approaching 1 as the number of events grows. Our notion of incentive
compatibility is more general than previous definitions of dominant strategy
incentive compatibility in that it allows for reports to be correlated with the
event outcomes. Moreover, our mechanisms are easy to implement and can be
generalized to the related problems of outputting a ranking over forecasters
and hiring a forecaster with high accuracy on future events.
