Group strategy-proof rules in multidimensional binary domains

IF 0.5 4区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS Social Choice and Welfare Pub Date : 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1007/s00355-024-01523-4
Aditya Aradhye, Hans Peters
{"title":"Group strategy-proof rules in multidimensional binary domains","authors":"Aditya Aradhye, Hans Peters","doi":"10.1007/s00355-024-01523-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We consider a setting in which the alternatives are binary vectors and the preferences of the agents are determined by the Hamming distance from their most preferred alternatives. We consider only rules that are unanimous, anonymous, and component-neutral, and focus on strategy-proofness, weak group strategy-proofness, and strong group strategy-proofness. We show that component-wise majority rules are strategy-proof, and for three agents or two components also weakly group strategy-proof, but not otherwise. These rules are even strongly group strategy-proof if there are two or three agents. Our main result is an impossibility result: if there are at least four agents and at least three components, then no rule is strongly group strategy-proof.</p>","PeriodicalId":47663,"journal":{"name":"Social Choice and Welfare","volume":"125 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Choice and Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-024-01523-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We consider a setting in which the alternatives are binary vectors and the preferences of the agents are determined by the Hamming distance from their most preferred alternatives. We consider only rules that are unanimous, anonymous, and component-neutral, and focus on strategy-proofness, weak group strategy-proofness, and strong group strategy-proofness. We show that component-wise majority rules are strategy-proof, and for three agents or two components also weakly group strategy-proof, but not otherwise. These rules are even strongly group strategy-proof if there are two or three agents. Our main result is an impossibility result: if there are at least four agents and at least three components, then no rule is strongly group strategy-proof.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多维二进制域中的群策略证明规则
我们考虑的情况是,备选方案是二进制向量,代理人的偏好由与其最偏好的备选方案之间的汉明距离决定。我们只考虑一致、匿名和中性的规则,并重点关注策略防错、弱群体策略防错和强群体策略防错。我们证明了分量多数规则是策略防错的,对于三个代理或两个分量也是弱群体策略防错的,但在其他方面则不是。如果有两个或三个代理人,这些规则甚至是强群策略防错的。我们的主要结果是一个不可能性结果:如果至少有四个代理人和至少三个组成部分,那么没有规则是强群策略证明的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Social Choice and Welfare explores all aspects, both normative and positive, of welfare economics, collective choice, and strategic interaction. Topics include but are not limited to: preference aggregation, welfare criteria, fairness, justice and equity, rights, inequality and poverty measurement, voting and elections, political games, coalition formation, public goods, mechanism design, networks, matching, optimal taxation, cost-benefit analysis, computational social choice, judgement aggregation, market design, behavioral welfare economics, subjective well-being studies and experimental investigations related to social choice and voting. As such, the journal is inter-disciplinary and cuts across the boundaries of economics, political science, philosophy, and mathematics. Articles on choice and order theory that include results that can be applied to the above topics are also included in the journal. While it emphasizes theory, the journal also publishes empirical work in the subject area reflecting cross-fertilizing between theoretical and empirical research. Readers will find original research articles, surveys, and book reviews.Officially cited as: Soc Choice Welf
期刊最新文献
Allocation without transfers: a welfare-maximizing mechanism under incomplete information Flexible representative democracy An axiomatic characterization of Split Cycle The character of non-manipulable collective choices between two alternatives Natural interviewing equilibria in matching settings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1