Optimal Budget Aggregation with Star-Shaped Preferences (2402.15904v2)
Abstract: We study the problem of aggregating distributions, such as budget proposals, into a collective distribution. An ideal aggregation mechanism would be Pareto efficient, strategyproof, and fair. Most previous work assumes that agents evaluate budgets according to the $\ell_1$ distance to their ideal budget. We investigate and compare different models from the larger class of star-shaped utility functions - a multi-dimensional generalization of single-peaked preferences. For the case of two alternatives, we extend existing results by proving that under very general assumptions, the uniform phantom mechanism is the only strategyproof mechanism that satisfies proportionality - a minimal notion of fairness introduced by Freeman et al. (2021). Moving to the case of more than two alternatives, we establish sweeping impossibilities for $\ell_1$ and $\ell_\infty$ disutilities: no mechanism satisfies efficiency, strategyproofness, and proportionality. We then propose a new kind of star-shaped utilities based on evaluating budgets by the ratios of shares between a given budget and an ideal budget. For these utilities, efficiency, strategyproofness, and fairness become compatible. In particular, we prove that the mechanism that maximizes the Nash product of individual utilities is characterized by group-strategyproofness and a core-based fairness condition.
- Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, volume 1. North-Holland, 2002.
- Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, volume 2. North-Holland, 2011.
- H. Aziz and N. Shah. Participatory budgeting: Models and approaches. In T. Rudas and G. Péli, editors, Pathways Between Social Science and Computational Social Science: Theories, Methods, and Interpretations, pages 215–236. Springer International Publishing, 2021.
- Fair mixing: the case of dichotomous preferences. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 8(4):18:1–18:27, 2020. Conference version appeared at ACM-EC 2019.
- Strategyproof and proportionally fair facility location. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), page 351, 2022.
- D. Berga and S. Serizawa. Maximal domain for strategy-proof rules with one public good. Journal of Economic Theory, 90(1):39–61, 2000.
- D. Black. On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of Political Economy, 56(1):23–34, 1948.
- Collective choice under dichotomous preferences. Journal of Economic Theory, 122(2):165–184, 2005.
- Straightforward elections, unanimity and phantom voters. Review of Economic Studies, 50(1):153–170, 1983.
- F. Brandt. Rolling the dice: Recent results in probabilistic social choice. In U. Endriss, editor, Trends in Computational Social Choice, chapter 1, pages 3–26. AI Access, 2017.
- Balanced donor coordination. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (ACM-EC), page 299, 2023. Extended version available at arXiv:2305.10286.
- Truthful aggregation of budget proposals with proportionality guarantees. In Proceedings of the 36th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), pages 4917–4924, 2022.
- Private Communication, January 2024.
- International Trends in Participatory Budgeting: Between Trivial Pursuits and Best Practices. Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.
- Settling the score: Portioning with cardinal preferences. In Proceedings of the 26th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI), pages 621–628, 2023.
- The core of the participatory budgeting problem. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), pages 384–399, 2016.
- P. C. Fishburn. A probabilistic model of social choice: Comment. Review of Economic Studies, 42(2):297–301, 1975.
- R. Freeman and U. Schmidt-Kraepelin. Project-fair and truthful mechanisms for budget aggregation. In Proceedings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2024. Forthcoming.
- Truthful aggregation of budget proposals. Journal of Economic Theory, 193:105234, 2021. Conference version appeared at ACM-EC 2019.
- A. Gibbard. Manipulation of schemes that mix voting with chance. Econometrica, 45(3):665–681, 1977.
- Markets beyond Nash welfare for Leontief utilities. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Web and Internet Economics (WINE), page 340, 2019a.
- Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 7(2):8:1–8:27, 2019b.
- M. D. Intriligator. A probabilistic model of social choice. Review of Economic Studies, 40(4):553–560, 1973.
- J. Li and J. Xue. Egalitarian division under Leontief preferences. Economic Theory, 54(3):597–622, 2013.
- Allocating public goods via the midpoint rule. In Proceedings of the 9th International Meeting of the Society of Social Choice and Welfare, 2008.
- J. Massó and I. M. de Barreda. On strategy-proofness and symmetric single-peakedness. Games and Economic Behavior, 72(2):467–484, 2011.
- H. Moulin. On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. Public Choice, 35(4):437–455, 1980.
- K. Nehring and C. Puppe. On the structure of strategy-proof social choice - part i: General characterization and possibility results on median spaces. Journal of Economic Theory, 135:269–305, 2007.
- K. Nehring and C. Puppe. Condorcet solutions in frugal models of budget allocation. KIT Working Paper Series in Economics, 2022.
- K. Nehring and C. Puppe. Multi-dimensional social choice under frugal information: The Tukey median as Condorcet winner ex ante. KIT Working Paper Series in Economics, 2023.
- A. Nicoló. Efficiency and truthfulness with Leontief preferences. A note on two-agent, two-good economies. Review of Economic Design, 8(4):373–382, 2004.
- E. M. Varloot and R. Laraki. Level-strategyproof belief aggregation mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 23th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (ACM-EC), pages 335–369, 2022.