Can we reach Pareto optimal outcomes using bottom-up approaches?

TL;DR

This paper investigates whether bottom-up subgroup interactions can lead to Pareto optimal outcomes in decision making, offering an alternative to traditional horizontal approaches that consider all participants simultaneously.

Contribution

It analytically proves conditions under which subgroup Pareto optimality extends to larger groups and empirically evaluates the practicality of bottom-up methods.

Findings

Pareto optimality in subgroups can extend to larger groups under certain preference conditions

Bottom-up approaches show promise in practical decision-making scenarios

Analytical and empirical results support bottom-up methods as viable alternatives

Abstract

Traditionally, researchers in decision making have focused on attempting to reach Pareto Optimality using horizontal approaches, where optimality is calculated taking into account every participant at the same time. Sometimes, this may prove to be a difficult task (e.g., conflict, mistrust, no information sharing, etc.). In this paper, we explore the possibility of achieving Pareto Optimal outcomes in a group by using a bottom-up approach: discovering Pareto optimal outcomes by interacting in subgroups. We analytically show that Pareto optimal outcomes in a subgroup are also Pareto optimal in a supergroup of those agents in the case of strict, transitive, and complete preferences. Then, we empirically analyze the prospective usability and practicality of bottom-up approaches in a variety of decision making domains.