TL;DR
This paper introduces a quantitative framework to evaluate and improve truthful budget aggregation mechanisms, extending proportionality guarantees to all preference profiles and analyzing their optimality and limitations.
Contribution
It extends the concept of proportionality to all preference profiles, proposes new mechanisms with approximation guarantees, and establishes impossibility results for moving phantom mechanisms.
Findings
Uniform Phantom mechanism is optimal for two projects.
A new proportional mechanism is nearly optimal for three projects.
Impossibility results limit the approximation of moving phantom mechanisms.
Abstract
We study a participatory budgeting problem, where a set of strategic agents wish to split a divisible budget among different projects, by aggregating their proposals on a single division. Unfortunately, the straight-forward rule that divides the budget proportionally is susceptible to manipulation. In a recent work, Freeman et al. [arXiv:1905.00457] proposed a class of truthful mechanisms, called moving phantom mechanisms. Among others, they propose a proportional mechanism, in the sense that in the extreme case where all agents prefer a single project to receive the whole amount, the budget is assigned proportionally. While proportionality is a naturally desired property, it is defined over a limited type of preference profiles. To address this, we expand the notion of proportionality, by proposing a quantitative framework which evaluates a budget aggregation mechanism according to its…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
