arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2602.23027cs.GT

预算聚合中的社会福利

Social Welfare in Budget Aggregation

Javier Cembrano, Rupert Freeman, Ulrike Schmidt-Kraepelin, Markus Utke

AI总结:

本文研究了在ℓ₁效用下的预算聚合问题,提出了一种新的单心智比例和诚实机制UtilProp,并证明其在比例性和福利之间取得了最优平衡。

摘要:

我们研究了在ℓ₁效用下的预算聚合,这是一个集体决策模型,其中具有异质偏好的代理必须将公共预算分配给一组替代方案。每个代理报告他们偏好的分配,然后一个机制选择一个分配。早期的工作集中在社会福利最大化上,这种情况下在该设置中允许诚实机制,但可能低估少数群体,从而推动了对比例机制的研究。然而,主导的比例性观念,单心智比例性,是弱的,因为它只在代理持有极端偏好时才约束结果。为了更好地理解比例性和其与福利和诚实性的相互作用,我们回答了三个问题。首先,为了实现比例性必须牺牲多少福利?我们通过价格比例性来形式化这个问题,即比例机制与Util(福利最大化机制)之间的最佳最坏情况福利比。我们介绍了一种新的单心智比例和诚实机制,UtilProp,并证明它实现了最优的最坏情况比。第二,比例机制在福利方面如何比较?我们定义了实例层面的福利主导关系,并用它来比较文献中的机制。特别是,我们证明UtilProp在福利上支配了所有已知的单心智比例和诚实机制。第三,是否可以在不牺牲福利保证的情况下实现更强的比例性观念?我们通过研究可分解性并提出GreedyDecomp,一种可分解的机制,具有最优的最坏情况福利比来回答这个问题。我们进一步证明计算福利主导的可分解机制UtilDecomp是NP难的,并且GreedyDecomp在福利方面提供了对UtilDecomp的2近似。

英文摘要:

We study budget aggregation under $\ell_1$-utilities, a model for collective decision making in which agents with heterogeneous preferences must allocate a public budget across a set of alternatives. Each agent reports their preferred allocation, and a mechanism selects an allocation. Early work focused on social welfare maximization, which in this setting admits truthful mechanisms, but may underrepresent minority groups, motivating the study of proportional mechanisms. However, the dominant proportionality notion, single-minded proportionality, is weak, as it only constrains outcomes when agents hold extreme preferences. To better understand proportionality and its interaction with welfare and truthfulness, we address three questions. First, how much welfare must be sacrificed to achieve proportionality? We formalize this via the price of proportionality, the best worst-case welfare ratio between a proportional mechanism and Util, the welfare-maximizing mechanism. We introduce a new single-minded proportional and truthful mechanism, UtilProp, and show that it achieves the optimal worst-case ratio. Second, how do proportional mechanisms compare in terms of welfare? We define an instance-wise welfare dominance relation and use it to compare mechanisms from the literature. In particular, we show that UtilProp welfare-dominates all previously known single-minded proportional and truthful mechanisms. Third, can stronger notions of proportionality be achieved without compromising welfare guarantees? We answer this question in the affirmative by studying decomposability and proposing GreedyDecomp, a decomposable mechanism with optimal worst-case welfare ratio. We further show that computing the welfare-dominant decomposable mechanism, UtilDecomp, is NP-hard, and that GreedyDecomp provides a 2-approximation to UtilDecomp in terms of welfare.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑