Individual Fairness in Budget Aggregation

Erel Segal-Halevi; Felix Brandt; Jannik Peters; Matthias Greger; Warut Suksompong; Xiaohui Bei

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 20 references

Individual Fairness in Budget Aggregation

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In budget aggregation with at least three alternatives, no rule can be simultaneously strategyproof, Pareto efficient, and fair in even the weakest single-minded sense; the same holds for both $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ disutility models.

desk verdict Strong on ℓ1 and computation; Section 5's ℓ2 oligarchy proof has an unjustified step that knocks out the headline ℓ2 impossibility as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01228 v1 pith:5NITQ2CQ submitted 2026-08-02 cs.GT econ.TH

Xiaohui Bei , Felix Brandt , Matthias Greger , Jannik Peters , Erel Segal-Halevi , Warut Suksompong This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GTecon.TH MSC 91B1491B32

keywords budgetaggregationindividualfairsharestrategyproofnessParetoefficiencysingle-mindedpositiveℓtutilitiesmoving-phantomrulessocialchoicetheory

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks what fairness one can require when a group aggregates individual preferred distributions of a fixed budget. It introduces two versions of individual fair share and a much weaker requirement, single-minded positive share, and proves that this weakest requirement cannot be combined with strategyproofness and Pareto efficiency once there are at least three alternatives. The incompatibility holds for both $\ell_1$ (Manhattan) and $\ell_2$ (Euclidean) disutilities. Against that, the paper shows that stronger fair-share guarantees can always be satisfied together with Pareto efficiency for any $\ell_t$ utility, with polynomial-time computation, and that in two small cases they can even be combined with strategyproofness. The reason this matters is that even the minimal protection of a single-minded minority forces a mechanism designer to give up either truthfulness or efficiency.

What carries the argument

For the negative $\ell_2$ results, the load-bearing object is the convex hull of the reported peaks: Proposition 5.1 identifies Pareto efficient outcomes with points in $\operatorname{conv}(p_1,\ldots,p_n)$, and a local-dictatorship lemma then forces any strategyproof efficient rule to be an oligarchy—once a coalition's peak coincides with the outcome in a two-peak profile, it must dictate whenever its members agree. For $\ell_1$, the analogous mechanism is the influence of an isolated single-minded agent, measured by her overlap utility; strategyproofness requires this influence to survive along a chain of intermediate profiles, while two agents with incompatible peaks require it simultaneously, producing the contradiction. On the constructive side, a water-filling procedure—each agent spends her $1/n$ share on the alternatives with the largest current deficit relative to her peak—provides the IFS values and a pure Nash equilibrium, from which IFS2-satisfying Pareto efficient distributions are derived.

What would settle it

Take $m=3$, two agents with peaks at $(1,0,0)$ and $(0,1,0)$ under $\ell_2$ utilities. Compute whether any distribution outside the segment between these peaks Pareto dominates a distribution on the segment; finding one would refute Proposition 5.1 and the $\ell_2$ dictatorship theorem. For $\ell_1$, an exhaustive computer search over a fine grid of profiles for $n=m=3$ looking for any rule that is strategyproof, Pareto efficient, and gives strictly positive overlap to each single-minded agent would either locate such a rule (refuting Theorem 4.3) or corroborate it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is an incompatibility: for $\ell_1$ utilities with $n,m\ge 3$, no aggregation rule can satisfy strategyproofness, Pareto efficiency, and single-minded positive share—the requirement that in profiles where every agent's peak is a single alternative, each agent receives strictly more than her worst possible utility. For $\ell_2$ utilities the same incompatibility holds for any $n\ge2$ and $m\ge3$, and for two agents it sharpens to a full characterization: every strategyproof and Pareto efficient rule is a dictatorship. Balanced against this, the paper shows that for $\ell_t$ utilities with $t\ge1$, distributions giving every agent the stronger individual-fair-share guarantees IFS1 and IFS2 always exist together with Pareto efficiency and can be computed in polynomial time, and that in the small cases $m=2$ or $(n,m)=(2,3)$ with $\ell_1$, fully truthful, efficient, and IFS2-satisfying rules exist.

Load-bearing premise

The $\ell_2$ result leans on the claim that in Euclidean space an efficient outcome must lie inside the convex hull of the reported peaks, extended to the budget simplex; if a boundary point of the simplex were an exception, the chain of lemmas that produces a dictatorship would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$, any mechanism designer who wants truthful reporting and Pareto efficiency must give up even the weakest individual fairness once $m\ge3$; no rule can have all three.
For $m=2$, truthful efficient aggregation with strong individual fairness is possible for all $n$ via the uniform phantom rule.
For $(n,m)=(2,3)$ under $\ell_1$, the input-dependent phantom-order rule shows that relaxing neutrality allows strategyproofness, Pareto efficiency, anonymity, continuity, and IFS2 to coexist.
For $\ell_2$ with $n=2$, the dictatorship characterization makes the impossibility transparent: the only truthful efficient rules are those that let one agent decide.
The polynomial-time construction of IFS2-satisfying efficient distributions means fairness and efficiency alone are always compatible for any $\ell_t$; only adding strategyproofness creates the deadlock.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the convex-hull/dictatorship route used for $\ell_2$ suggests testing the same impossibility for other strictly convex $\ell_t$ metrics with $1<t<\infty$; a direct test would be to rerun the two-peak local-dictatorship argument for $\ell_3$.
A practical consequence the authors leave implicit is that in participatory budgeting, any mechanism that is both strategyproof and Pareto efficient will systematically ignore the preferences of a single-minded minority, so designers must either accept bounded manipulation or weaken one of the two axioms.
The input-dependent phantom-order rule suggests a general design pattern—letting the tie-breaking order of phantom movements depend on the reported peaks—that could be explored for $m>3$ alternatives.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague, here's my take. The paper is a serious theory contribution, but it's not all of a piece. The Sections 3 and 4 material is genuinely good. Introducing IFS2 and computing IFS values in strongly polynomial time for all ℓ_t utilities via water-filling is clean; the existence of distributions meeting IFS2 plus Pareto efficiency (Cor 3.10) and the explicit formulas for ℓ1 (Thms 4.1, 4.2) are real results. Theorem 4.3, the impossibility for ℓ1 when n,m≥3 with only single-minded positive share, is a strong strengthening of Brandt et al. and the proof, while long, is coherent. The input-dependent phantom-order rule for (2,3) is an interesting mechanism that deserves attention.

The problem is Section 5. Lemma C.5 has a load-bearing gap. After moving N2's peaks to q_epsilon, the text says "By efficiency, the new outcome cannot be p_N1, as it is outside the convex hull of peaks. Hence, the outcome must be p'_N1." That 'hence' does not follow. Proposition 5.1 only says the outcome is in conv(q_epsilon, p'_N1) — the whole segment. Every interior point of that segment is Pareto efficient, and strategyproofness is not invoked at this step. The quoted argument doesn't rule out an interior point. Without an extra argument — e.g., showing that an interior outcome z would let N2 become decisive at z and contradict N1's decisiveness at p_N1 — the oligarchy lemma, Lemma 5.2, and Theorem 5.3 are not established. That's a serious gap, not a cosmetic one, because Section 5 is billed as the ℓ2 analogue of the main impossibility.

There are smaller issues: Prop 5.1's extension of Durier-Michelot is asserted without proof in the main text; the appendix's projection argument is compressed about boundary points. And Lemma A.1's Nash equilibrium characterization is informal, though I don't think it's wrong. None of these approach the C.5 problem.

In short: Sections 3 and 4 deserve a careful read and are citable. Section 5 is not there yet. If the authors can fill the C.5 gap, the paper is strong; if not, the ℓ2 claims should be withdrawn or weakened. I would send it to peer review, but with a request for a complete proof of Lemma C.5 before acceptance.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies budget aggregation, where each agent reports a preferred distribution over m alternatives and a rule returns a collective distribution. It defines two individual-fair-share notions (IFS1 and IFS2), a weaker positive-share (PS) notion, and a single-minded weakening (single-minded PS). For general ℓ_t utilities, it gives polynomial-time algorithms for computing the IFS values and proves that a distribution can simultaneously satisfy IFS2 and Pareto efficiency. For ℓ_1 utilities it derives closed-form IFS formulas, proves an impossibility of strategyproofness, Pareto efficiency, and single-minded PS for n,m ≥ 3, and gives positive rules for m=2 and for (n,m)=(2,3). For ℓ_2 utilities it proves a similar impossibility for all n≥2, m≥3 and characterizes the two-agent case as dictatorship via an oligarchy lemma.

Significance. If the results are correct, they materially strengthen earlier impossibility results by replacing single-minded proportionality with the much weaker single-minded positive share, and they provide a clean oligarchy/dictatorship characterization for ℓ_2 utilities. The paper's constructive results for IFS2, especially the water-filling algorithms and the existence of efficient distributions satisfying IFS2, are valuable and are supported by explicit proofs. The ℓ_1 impossibility proof is self-contained and appears sound. The main obstacle is the proof of Lemma C.5 in the ℓ_2 section, which is load-bearing for the Section 5 conclusions and currently contains an unjustified step; the gap looks repairable, but it must be fixed before the paper's central ℓ_2 claims are fully established.

major comments (1)

[Appendix C, Lemma C.5] The step reading 'By efficiency, the new outcome cannot be p_N1, as it is outside the convex hull of peaks. Hence, the outcome must be p'_N1' is not justified. After moving the peaks of agents in N2 to q_epsilon = (1-epsilon)p_N1 + epsilon p'_N1, Proposition 5.1 only implies that the new outcome lies in conv(q_epsilon, p'_N1), i.e., on the segment between q_epsilon and p'_N1, and every interior point of that segment is Pareto efficient. Strategyproofness is not invoked in this sentence, so efficiency alone does not force the outcome to be p'_N1. This is a load-bearing point: Lemma C.5 is the bridge from local decisiveness to the global oligarchy in Lemma 5.2, and Theorem 5.3 depends on Lemma 5.2. The gap appears repairable: if the outcome were some z different from p'_N1, one could move all agents in N2 to z, apply strategyproofness to keep the outcome at z, and then use Lemma C.4 to make N2 decisive at z, contradicting the already-established decisiveness of N1 at p_N1; the boundary cases z=q_epsilon and z=p_N1 need separate care. This argument, however, is not present in the manuscript and must be added.

minor comments (3)

[Appendix C, Lemma C.4] The assertion 'By strategyproofness, f(P')=f(P)' in the chain of profiles is too terse. Strategyproofness alone does not force the outcome to stay fixed when a voter changes her report; the argument needs the induction that the outcome before each move is already f(P), so that an agent with true peak f(P) could profitably deviate if the outcome changed. This is a valid implicit argument, but it should be spelled out.
[Section 4.2, discussion after Theorem 4.3] The sentence 'This impossibility shows that every unanimous and (strongly) group-strategyproof rule violates positive share' should be made more precise: the theorem establishes a violation of single-minded positive share, and one additional sentence is needed to explain that a rule satisfying positive share would in particular satisfy single-minded positive share.
[Section 4, paragraph introducing IFS0] The abbreviation IFS0 appears in Table 1 and in the related-work discussion before it is formally defined in Section 4; consider moving or anticipating the definition so that all uses of the term are defined at first appearance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central impossibilities are derived from external theorems and self-contained case analyses.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section 3 uses Rosen's concave-game existence theorem, Danskin's theorem, and explicit water-filling algorithms to establish IFS values and IFS-satisfying distributions; no parameter is fitted to the quantities being claimed. Theorem 4.3 is proved by constructing profiles 1, 1', 1_epsilon, 1'_epsilon', and an induction over intermediate profiles; the citation to Brandt et al. (2026) is only a comparison noting that the new result strengthens their Theorem 1, and no step of the proof relies on that citation. Section 5's key characterization (Proposition 5.1) is an extension of Durier and Michelot (1986) proved via Brezis's metric projection fact; both sources are external to the authors, and the paper does not import a uniqueness theorem from the authors' own prior work. The closest thing to a concern is Lemma C.5's step 'By efficiency, the new outcome cannot be p_N1... Hence, the outcome must be p'_N1', where Pareto efficiency plus Proposition 5.1 only places the outcome in the segment conv(q_epsilon, p'_N1); this is a possible proof gap rather than a circular reduction, since it does not identify the conclusion with an input, fitted parameter, or self-citation. Therefore no claim reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the paper's central results have independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on standard mathematical theorems (Rosen, Danskin, Durier-Michelot, Moulin) and the domain assumption of ℓ_t utilities with normalized budgets. No free parameters are fitted to data. The new fairness notions and the input-dependent phantom-order rule are definitions and mechanisms internal to the paper, not independent entities requiring external evidence.

assumptions (8)

standard math Rosen's theorem on the existence of pure Nash equilibria in concave games
Invoked in the proof of Proposition 3.7 to establish equilibrium existence in the budget aggregation game; the strategy space is a product of simplices and utility functions are concave in each agent's own strategy.
standard math Danskin's theorem for subgradients of maximum functions
Used in the computation part of Proposition 3.7 to derive a subgradient of the convex objective containing the zero vector.
standard math Durier and Michelot (1986) characterization of efficient points in Hilbert spaces
Foundation for Proposition 5.1, which equates Pareto efficiency under ℓ2 utilities with membership in the convex hull of the reported peaks.
standard math Moulin's characterization of strategyproof generalized median rules
Used in Theorem 4.6 to establish strategyproofness of the uniform phantom rule for two alternatives.
domain assumption Agents have ℓ_t disutilities with t ≥ 1, possibly varying per agent
The entire model in Section 2 is restricted to ℓ_t metrics; all theorems are stated under this domain assumption.
domain assumption Each agent controls a 1/n share of the budget and can distribute it arbitrarily
The IFS1 and IFS2 definitions in Section 3.1 are based on this budget aggregation game.
domain assumption The budget is normalized to one unit
Section 2 fixes the simplex Δ_m as the outcome space; the results scale linearly with the budget.
domain assumption Rules are defined for all profiles in the domain, including non-single-minded ones
Strategyproofness is required on the full domain, which is essential for the intermediate-profile chain in the proof of Theorem 4.3.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Individual Fairness in Budget Aggregation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NITQ2CQ

@misc{pith2026260801228,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Individual Fairness in Budget Aggregation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NITQ2CQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01228}
}

abstract

We consider the problem of aggregating $n$ individual distributions over $m$ alternatives into a collective distribution, also known as budget aggregation. Existing fairness notions in this literature typically do not guarantee fairness to individual agents. To address this, we define two versions of individual fair share guarantees. We show that when agents' utilities are derived from $\ell_t$ metrics for any $t\geq 1$, both these guarantees can be satisfied along with Pareto efficiency, and the corresponding distributions can be computed in polynomial time. On the other hand, for $\ell_1$ utilities, we prove that Pareto efficiency, strategyproofness, and a very weak fairness notion called single-minded positive share are not always compatible for $n,m \ge 3$. For smaller parameters, we provide rules that satisfy these three axioms. We also establish similar impossibility results for $\ell_2$ utilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01228 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Illustration of the proof of Lemma C.2. Definition C.3. (a) We say that a coalition N1 ⊊ N is decisive at pN1 if, for all profiles in which all agents from N1 report the same peak pN1 , the outcome is pN1 . (b) We say that N1 ⊊ N is an oligarchy if it is decisive at every pN1 ∈ ∆m. In particular, if N1 is a singleton, then its unique member is called a dictator. Lemma C.4. Let N1 ⊊ N be a coalition of agents with pe… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

J.; Sen, A.; and Suzumura, K., eds

Arrow, K. J.; Sen, A.; and Suzumura, K., eds. 2002.Hand- book of Social Choice and Welfare, volume

work page 2002
[2]

Arrow, K

North- Holland. Arrow, K. J.; Sen, A.; and Suzumura, K., eds. 2011.Hand- book of Social Choice and Welfare, volume

work page 2011
[3]

Finally, we explain how our proof can be extended to largernandm. Forn>3,addn−3agentswiththesamepeakasagent3toeachprofile.NotethatthesetofParetoefficientdistributionsfor a given profile does not change when adding agents with the same peak as agent3. The same holds for distributions that satisfy single-minded PS. As agent3’s peak stays fixed throughout th...

work page 2024
[9]

In Proceedingsofthe27thACMConferenceonEconomicsand Computation (ACM-EC)

Social welfare in budget aggregation. In Proceedingsofthe27thACMConferenceonEconomicsand Computation (ACM-EC). Forthcoming. Danskin, J. M. 1967.The Theory of Max-Min and its Appli- cation to Weapons Allocation Problems. Springer. deBerg,M.;Freeman,R.;Schmidt-Kraepelin,U.;andUtke, M

work page 1967
[10]

Endriss, U., ed

Settling the score: Portioning with cardinal preferences.Artificial Intelligence, 352: 104487. Endriss, U., ed. 2017.Trends in Computational Social Choice. AI Access. Flesch, J.; and Solan, E

work page 2017
[15]

Ye, Y.; and Tse, E

Distribution aggregation via continuous Thiele’s rules.CoRR, abs/2408.01054. Ye, Y.; and Tse, E

arXiv
[16]

Here,thefirstinequalityfollowsfromthefactthatrx 1 + (1−r)x 2∈∆ m( 1 n),soitisaspecialcaseofx(infact,itisanequality, because one can setx1 =x 2 =x)

+ (1−r)g(y 2). Here,thefirstinequalityfollowsfromthefactthatrx 1 + (1−r)x 2∈∆ m( 1 n),soitisaspecialcaseofx(infact,itisanequality, because one can setx1 =x 2 =x). The second inequality follows from the concavity ofui. 9This can be viewed as a special case of the gradient ascent procedure for maximizing a concave function. 10 Since the minimum of a concave...

work page 1965
[17]

We claim that any solutionq∗ of (2) induces a Nash equilibrium of the budget-aggregation game

as well as some faster methods (Kapoor and Vaidya 1986; Ye and Tse 1989). We claim that any solutionq∗ of (2) induces a Nash equilibrium of the budget-aggregation game. As (2) is convex and unconstrained, the subgradient atq∗ must contain0. The gradient of the first term 1 2∥q∥2 2 is simplyq. To compute the subgradientofthesecondterm 1 n P i∈N (maxj∈M (pi...

work page 1986

Show all 20 references

[19]

Letjmax := arg maxj∈M σj

in the phantom system of alternativejare at or above1/n. Letjmax := arg maxj∈M σj. Consider the following profile: 10This appears in Appendix C in the full version of their work: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.20303v2. 16 •agent1’s peak distributes1to alternativej max and0to all re...

1980 arXiv
[20]

Thuso p(z)+oq(z)≤1+ P j∈M min{pj,qj}foreverydistributionz.Itfollowsthatymaximizesthesumofoverlaputilities

On the other hand, for any distributionz∈∆3 and any coordinatej, min{pj,zj}+ min{qj,zj}≤min{p j,qj}+z j. Thuso p(z)+oq(z)≤1+ P j∈M min{pj,qj}foreverydistributionz.Itfollowsthatymaximizesthesumofoverlaputilities. 20 C Proofs for Section 5 Proposition 5.1.Forℓ 2 utilities, a rul...

1986
[1965]

Sion,M.1958

Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concaven-person games.Econometrica, 33(3): 520–534. Sion,M.1958. Ongeneralminimaxtheorems.PacificJour- nal of Mathematics, 8(1): 171–176. Solan, E

1958
[1970]

Freeman, R.; Pennock, D

Lindahl’s solution and the core of an economy with public goods.Econometrica, 38(1): 66–72. Freeman, R.; Pennock, D. M.; Peters, D.; and Wortman Vaughan,J.2021. Truthfulaggregationofbudgetproposals. Journal of Economic Theory, 193: 105234. Freeman, R.; and Schmidt-Kraepelin, U

2021
[1980]

Peters,H.;vanderStel,H.;andStorcken,T.1992

On strategy-proofness and single peaked- ness.Public Choice, 35(4): 437–455. Peters,H.;vanderStel,H.;andStorcken,T.1992. Paretoop- timality,anonymity,andstrategy-proofnessinlocationprob- lems.International Journal of Game Theory, 21(3): 221–

1992
[1990]

Becker, P.; Fries, A.; Greger, M.; and Segal-Halevi, E

Strategy-proof voting schemes with continuous preferences.Social Choice and Welfare, 7(1): 31–38. Becker, P.; Fries, A.; Greger, M.; and Segal-Halevi, E. 2026.Efficientlycomputingequilibriainbudget-aggregation games. InProceedings ofthe25thInternationalConference on Autonomous...

2026
[2011]

Journal of Political Economy, 119(6): 1061–1103

The combinatorial assignment problem: Approximate competitive equilibrium from equal incomes. Journal of Political Economy, 119(6): 1061–1103. Caragiannis,I.;Christodoulou,G.;andProtopapas,N.2024. Truthful aggregation of budget proposals with proportional- ity guarantees.Artif...

2024
[2016]

Brandl,F.;Brandt,F.;Peters,D.;andStricker,C.2021

Characterizing con- flictsinfairdivisionofindivisiblegoodsusingascaleofcri- teria.Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 30(2): 259–290. Brandl,F.;Brandt,F.;Peters,D.;andStricker,C.2021. Dis- tribution rules under dichotomous preferences: Two out of threeain’tbad. InProcee...

2021
[2022]

Bogomolnaia,A.;Moulin,H.;andStong,R.2005.Collective choiceunderdichotomouspreferences.JournalofEconomic Theory, 122(2): 165–184

Guarantees in fair division: General or monotone preferences.Mathematics of Operations Research, 48(1): 160–176. Bogomolnaia,A.;Moulin,H.;andStong,R.2005.Collective choiceunderdichotomouspreferences.JournalofEconomic Theory, 122(2): 165–184. Border, K. C.; and Jordan, J. S

2005
[2024]

Gaertner, W

Project-fair andtruthfulmechanismsforbudgetaggregation.InProceed- ings of the 38th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 9704–9712. Gaertner, W. 2006.A Primer in Social Choice Theory. LSE PerspectivesinEconomicAnalysis.OxfordUniversityPress. Goel, A.; Krishnaswamy...

2006
[2025]

Aziz,H.;Lederer,P.;andVollen,J.2026

Proportionality-based fairness and strategyproofness in the facility location problem.Journal of Mathematical Eco- nomics, 119: 103129. Aziz,H.;Lederer,P.;andVollen,J.2026. Approximatestrat- egyproofnessinapproval-basedbudgetdivision. InProceed- ings of the 35th International ...

2026
[2026]

Forthcoming

Optimal budget aggregation with star-shaped preference domains.Mathematics of Operations Research. Forthcoming. Brezis, H. 2011.Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations. Springer. Budish, E

2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J.; Sen, A.; and Suzumura, K., eds

Arrow, K. J.; Sen, A.; and Suzumura, K., eds. 2002.Hand- book of Social Choice and Welfare, volume

work page 2002

[2] [2]

Arrow, K

North- Holland. Arrow, K. J.; Sen, A.; and Suzumura, K., eds. 2011.Hand- book of Social Choice and Welfare, volume

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Finally, we explain how our proof can be extended to largernandm. Forn>3,addn−3agentswiththesamepeakasagent3toeachprofile.NotethatthesetofParetoefficientdistributionsfor a given profile does not change when adding agents with the same peak as agent3. The same holds for distributions that satisfy single-minded PS. As agent3’s peak stays fixed throughout th...

work page 2024

[4] [9]

In Proceedingsofthe27thACMConferenceonEconomicsand Computation (ACM-EC)

Social welfare in budget aggregation. In Proceedingsofthe27thACMConferenceonEconomicsand Computation (ACM-EC). Forthcoming. Danskin, J. M. 1967.The Theory of Max-Min and its Appli- cation to Weapons Allocation Problems. Springer. deBerg,M.;Freeman,R.;Schmidt-Kraepelin,U.;andUtke, M

work page 1967

[5] [10]

Endriss, U., ed

Settling the score: Portioning with cardinal preferences.Artificial Intelligence, 352: 104487. Endriss, U., ed. 2017.Trends in Computational Social Choice. AI Access. Flesch, J.; and Solan, E

work page 2017

[6] [15]

Ye, Y.; and Tse, E

Distribution aggregation via continuous Thiele’s rules.CoRR, abs/2408.01054. Ye, Y.; and Tse, E

arXiv

[7] [16]

Here,thefirstinequalityfollowsfromthefactthatrx 1 + (1−r)x 2∈∆ m( 1 n),soitisaspecialcaseofx(infact,itisanequality, because one can setx1 =x 2 =x)

+ (1−r)g(y 2). Here,thefirstinequalityfollowsfromthefactthatrx 1 + (1−r)x 2∈∆ m( 1 n),soitisaspecialcaseofx(infact,itisanequality, because one can setx1 =x 2 =x). The second inequality follows from the concavity ofui. 9This can be viewed as a special case of the gradient ascent procedure for maximizing a concave function. 10 Since the minimum of a concave...

work page 1965

[8] [17]

We claim that any solutionq∗ of (2) induces a Nash equilibrium of the budget-aggregation game

as well as some faster methods (Kapoor and Vaidya 1986; Ye and Tse 1989). We claim that any solutionq∗ of (2) induces a Nash equilibrium of the budget-aggregation game. As (2) is convex and unconstrained, the subgradient atq∗ must contain0. The gradient of the first term 1 2∥q∥2 2 is simplyq. To compute the subgradientofthesecondterm 1 n P i∈N (maxj∈M (pi...

work page 1986