Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Project-Fair and Truthful Mechanisms for Budget Aggregation (2309.02613v2)

Published 5 Sep 2023 in cs.GT

Abstract: We study the budget aggregation problem in which a set of strategic voters must split a finite divisible resource (such as money or time) among a set of competing projects. Our goal is twofold: We seek truthful mechanisms that provide fairness guarantees to the projects. For the first objective, we focus on the class of moving phantom mechanisms [Freeman et al., 2021], which are -- to this day -- essentially the only known truthful mechanisms in this setting. For project fairness, we consider the mean division as a fair baseline, and bound the maximum difference between the funding received by any project and this baseline. We propose a novel and simple moving phantom mechanism that provides optimal project fairness guarantees. As a corollary of our results, we show that our new mechanism minimizes the $\ell_1$ distance to the mean (a measure suggested by Caragiannis et al. [2022]) for three projects and gives the first non-trivial bounds on this quantity for more than three projects.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (27)
  1. Portioning using ordinal preferences: Fairness and efficiency. Artificial Intelligence, 314:103809, 2023.
  2. H. Aziz and N. Shah. Participatory budgeting: Models and approaches. Pathways Between Social Science and Computational Social Science: Theories, Methods, and Interpretations, pages 215–236, 2021.
  3. Strategyproof and proportionally fair facility location. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.01566, 2021.
  4. Generalized median voter schemes and committees. Journal of Economic Theory, 61(2):262–289, 1993.
  5. Voting under constraints. Journal of Economic Theory, 76(2):298–321, 1997.
  6. Collective choice under dichotomous preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 122(2):165–184, 2005.
  7. Straightforward elections, unanimity and phantom voters. The Review of Economic Studies, 50(1):153–170, 1983.
  8. Distribution rules under dichotomous preferences: Two out of three ain’t bad. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 158–179, 2021.
  9. Y. Cabannes. Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and urbanization, 16(1):27–46, 2004.
  10. Truthful univariate estimators. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 127–135, 2016.
  11. Truthful aggregation of budget proposals with proportionality guarantees. In Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 4917–4924, 2022.
  12. Settling the score: Portioning with cardinal preferences. In Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 621–628. 2023.
  13. The core of the participatory budgeting problem. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 384–399, 2016.
  14. Truthful aggregation of budget proposals. Journal of Economic Theory, 193:105234, 2021.
  15. Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 7(2):1–27, 2019.
  16. Low Sample Complexity Participatory Budgeting. In Proceedings of the 50th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, pages 70:1–70:20, 2023.
  17. New characterizations of strategy-proofness under single-peakedness. Mathematical Programming, pages 1–32, 2023.
  18. Allocating public goods via the midpoint rule. In Proceedings of the 9th International Meeting of the Society for Social Choice and Welfare, 2008.
  19. Price of fairness in budget division and probabilistic social choice. In Proceedings of the 34th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2184–2191, 2020.
  20. H. Moulin. On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. Public Choice, pages 437–455, 1980.
  21. K. Nehring and C. Puppe. Resource allocation by frugal majority rule. Technical report, KIT Working Paper Series in Economics, 2019.
  22. Pareto optimality, anonymity, and strategy-proofness in location problems. International Journal of Game Theory, 21:221–235, 1992.
  23. A. D. Procaccia and M. Tennenholtz. Approximate mechanism design without money. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 1(4):1–26, 2013.
  24. R. Renault and A. Trannoy. Protecting minorities through the average voting rule. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 7(2):169–199, 2005.
  25. R. Renault and A. Trannoy. Assessing the extent of strategic manipulation: the average vote example. SERIEs, 2:497–513, 2011.
  26. E. M. Varloot and R. Laraki. Level-strategyproof belief aggregation mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 335–369, 2022.
  27. J. Wagner and R. Meir. Strategy-proof budgeting via a vcg-like mechanism. In Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory, pages 401–418, 2023.
Citations (6)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com