  Scoring rules for eliciting expert predictions of random variables are
usually developed assuming that experts derive utility only from the quality of
their predictions (e.g., score awarded by the rule, or payoff in a prediction
market). We study a more realistic setting in which (a) the principal is a
decision maker and will take a decision based on the expert's prediction; and
(b) the expert has an inherent interest in the decision. For example, in a
corporate decision market, the expert may derive different levels of utility
from the actions taken by her manager. As a consequence the expert will usually
have an incentive to misreport her forecast to influence the choice of the
decision maker if typical scoring rules are used. We develop a general model
for this setting and introduce the concept of a compensation rule. When
combined with the expert's inherent utility for decisions, a compensation rule
induces a net scoring rule that behaves like a normal scoring rule. Assuming
full knowledge of expert utility, we provide a complete characterization of all
(strictly) proper compensation rules. We then analyze the situation where the
expert's utility function is not fully known to the decision maker. We show
bounds on: (a) expert incentive to misreport; (b) the degree to which an expert
will misreport; and (c) decision maker loss in utility due to such uncertainty.
These bounds depend in natural ways on the degree of uncertainty, the local
degree of convexity of net scoring function, and natural properties of the
decision maker's utility function. They also suggest optimization procedures
for the design of compensation rules. Finally, we briefly discuss the use of
compensation rules as market scoring rules for self-interested experts in a
prediction market.
