Optimal Budget Aggregation with Star-Shaped Preference Domains
References
- [1] Arrow KJ, Sen A, Suzumura K, eds. (2002) Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 1 (North Holland, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
- [2] Arrow KJ, Sen A, Suzumura K, eds. (2011) Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 2 (North Holland, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
- [3] (1961) The core of a cooperative game without side payments. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 98(3):539–552.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [4] (2021) Participatory budgeting: Models and approaches. Rudas T, Péli G, eds. Pathways Between Social Science and Computational Social Science: Theories, Methods, and Interpretations, Computational Social Sciences (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 215–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [5] (2020) Fair mixing: The case of dichotomous preferences. ACM Trans. Econom. Comput. 8(4):18:1–18:27.Google Scholar
- [6] (2025) Proportionality-based fairness and strategyproofness in the facility location problem. J. Math. Econom. 119:103129.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [7] (1994) A characterization of strategy-proof social choice functions for economies with pure public goods. Soc. Choice Welfare 11(3):241–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [8] (1990) Strategy-proof voting schemes with continuous preferences. Soc. Choice Welfare 7(1):31–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [9] (2000) Maximal domain for strategy-proof rules with one public good. J. Econom. Theory 90(1):39–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [10] (1948) On the rationale of group decision-making. J. Political Econom. 56(1):23–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [11] (2005) Collective choice under dichotomous preferences. J. Econom. Theory 122(2):165–184.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [12] (1983) Straightforward elections, unanimity and phantom voters. Rev. Econom. Stud. 50(1):153–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [13] (2020) From Arrow–Debreu condition to star shape preferences. Optimization 69(11):2405–2419.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [14] (2017) Rolling the dice: Recent results in probabilistic social choice. Endriss U, ed. Trends in Computational Social Choice (AI Access), 3–26.Google Scholar
- [15] (2025) Coordinating charitable donations with Leontief preferences. J. Econom. Theory 230:106096.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [16] (2024) Truthful aggregation of budget proposals with proportionality guarantees. Artificial Intelligence 335:104178.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [17] (2024) Truthful budget aggregation: Beyond moving-phantom mechanisms. Preprint, submitted July 25, https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20303.Google Scholar
- [18] (2022) International Trends in Participatory Budgeting: Between Trivial Pursuits and Best Practices, Governance and Public Management (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland).Crossref, Google Scholar
- [19] (2023) Settling the score: Portioning with cardinal preferences. Gal K, Nowé A, Nalepa GJ, Fairstein R, Rădulescu R, eds. Proc. 26th Eur. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) (IOS Press, Amsterdam), 621–628.Google Scholar
- [20] (2016) The core of the participatory budgeting problem. Cai Y, Vetta A, eds. Proc. 12th Internat. Conf. Web Internet Econom. (WINE 2016), vol. 10123 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg), 384–399.Google Scholar
- [21] (2024) Project-fair and truthful mechanisms for budget aggregation. Wooldridge M, Dy J, Natarajan S, eds. Proc. 38th AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI Press, Washington, DC), 9704–9712.Google Scholar
- [22] (2021) Truthful aggregation of budget proposals. J. Econom. Theory 193:105234.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [23] (1977) Manipulation of schemes that mix voting with chance. Econometrica 45(3):665–681.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [24] (2019) Markets beyond Nash welfare for Leontief utilities. Proc. 15th Internat. Conf. Web Internet Econom. (New York), 340.Google Scholar
- [25] (2019) Knapsack voting for participatory budgeting. ACM Trans. Econom. Comput. 7(2):8:1–8:27.Google Scholar
- [26] (1973) A probabilistic model of social choice. Rev. Econom. Stud. 40(4):553–560.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [27] (2024) New characterizations of strategy-proofness under single-peakedness. Math. Programming 203(1–2):207–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [28] (2013) Egalitarian division under Leontief preferences. Econom. Theory 54(3):597–622.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [29] (2011) Zur Manipulierbarkeit der Allokation öffentlicher Güter: Theoretische Analyse und Simulationsergebnisse. PhD thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.Google Scholar
- [30] (2008) Allocating public goods via the midpoint rule. Proc. 9th Internat. Meeting Soc. Soc. Choice Welfare (Society of Social Choice and Welfare, Caen, France).Google Scholar
- [31] (1995) Microeconomic Theory (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
- [32] (2011) On strategy-proofness and symmetric single-peakedness. Games Econom. Behav. 72(2):467–484.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [33] (1980) On strategy-proofness and single peakedness. Public Choice 35(4):437–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [34] (2004) Efficiency and truthfulness with Leontief preferences. A note on two-agent, two-good economies. Rev. Econom. Design 8(4):373–382.Google Scholar
- [35] (1971) On the existence of a cooperative solution for a general class of n-person games. J. Econom. Theory 3(2):169–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
- [36] (2022) Level-strategyproof belief aggregation mechanisms. EC’22: Proc. 23rd ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 335–369.Google Scholar
- [37] (1991) Impossibility of strategy-proof mechanisms in economies with pure public goods. Rev. Econom. Stud. 58(1):107–119.Crossref, Google Scholar

