Finish introduction and begin with mathematical model
This commit is contained in:
parent
72377aa25c
commit
dd557b7f88
@ -3,6 +3,7 @@
|
|||||||
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
|
||||||
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
|
||||||
\usepackage{microtype}
|
\usepackage{microtype}
|
||||||
|
\usepackage{setspace}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{amssymb}
|
\usepackage{amssymb}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -12,6 +13,8 @@
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
\usepackage{hyperref}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\setstretch{1.05}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\addbibresource{references.bib}
|
\addbibresource{references.bib}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
%opening
|
%opening
|
||||||
@ -60,20 +63,59 @@ stages \autocite{participatorybudgetingprojectHowPBWorks}:
|
|||||||
main interest for computer scientists, economists and social choice theorists
|
main interest for computer scientists, economists and social choice theorists
|
||||||
because depending on how voters elicit their preferences (\emph{balloting}) and
|
because depending on how voters elicit their preferences (\emph{balloting}) and
|
||||||
how the votes are aggregated through the use of algorithms, the outcome is
|
how the votes are aggregated through the use of algorithms, the outcome is
|
||||||
different.
|
different. For this paper it is assumed that the first three stages have already
|
||||||
|
been completed. The rules of the process have been set, ideas have been
|
||||||
|
collected and developed into feasible projects and the budget limit is known. To
|
||||||
|
study different ways of capturing votes and aggregating them, the participatory
|
||||||
|
process is modeled mathematically. This model will be called a participatory
|
||||||
|
budgeting \emph{scenario}. The aim of studying participatory budgeting scenarios
|
||||||
|
is to find ways to achieve a desirable outcome. A desirable outcome can be one
|
||||||
|
based on fairness by making sure that each voter has at least one chosen project
|
||||||
|
in the final set of winning projects for example. Other approaches are concerned
|
||||||
|
with maximizing social welfare or discouraging \emph{gaming the voting process}
|
||||||
|
(where an outcome can be manipulated by not voting truthfully; also called
|
||||||
|
\emph{strategyproofness}).
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
First, this paper will look at how a participatory budgeting scenario can be
|
||||||
|
modeled mathematically. Then, a brief overview over common models will be given.
|
||||||
|
To illustrate these methods, one approach will be chosen and discussed in detail
|
||||||
|
with respect to algorithmic complexity and properties. Finally, the gained
|
||||||
|
insight into participatory budgeting algorithms will be summarized and an
|
||||||
|
outlook on further developments will be given.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\section{Mathematical Model}
|
||||||
|
\label{sec:mathematical model}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\textcite{talmonFrameworkApprovalBasedBudgeting2019} define a participatory
|
||||||
|
budgeting scenario as a tuple $E = (P,V,c,B)$, consisting of a set of projects
|
||||||
|
$P = \{ p_1,\dots,p_m \}$ where each project $p\in P$ has an associated cost
|
||||||
|
$c(p):P\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$, a set of voters $V = \{v_1,\dots,v_n\}$ and a
|
||||||
|
budget limit $B$. The voters express preferences over individual projects or
|
||||||
|
over subsets of all projects. How the preferences of voters are expressed has to
|
||||||
|
be decided during the design phase of the process and is a choice that has to be
|
||||||
|
made in accordance with the method that is used for aggregating the votes. After
|
||||||
|
the voters have elicited their preferences, a set of projects $A\subseteq P$ is
|
||||||
|
selected as \emph{winning projects} according to some rule and subject to the
|
||||||
|
total budget limit $B$. For the case where projects are indivisible, which is
|
||||||
|
also called discrete, the sum of the winning projects' costs is not allowed to
|
||||||
|
exceed the limit $B$:
|
||||||
|
\begin{equation}
|
||||||
|
\sum_{p\in A}{c(p)\leq B}.
|
||||||
|
\end{equation}
|
||||||
|
When projects can be divisible, i.e. completed to a fractional degree, the
|
||||||
|
authors define a function $\mu(p) : P\rightarrow [0,1]$ which maps every project
|
||||||
|
to an interval between zero and one, representing the fractional degree to which
|
||||||
|
this project is completed. Since the cost of each project is a function of its
|
||||||
|
degree of completion, the goal is to select a set of projects where the cost of
|
||||||
|
the degree of completion does not exceed the budget limit:
|
||||||
|
\begin{equation}
|
||||||
|
\sum_{p\in A}{c(\mu(p))\leq B}.
|
||||||
|
\end{equation}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\textcite{azizParticipatoryBudgetingModels2020} define a taxonomy of
|
\textcite{azizParticipatoryBudgetingModels2020} define a taxonomy of
|
||||||
participatory budgeting scenarios where projects can be either divisible or
|
participatory budgeting scenarios where projects can be either divisible or
|
||||||
indivisible and bounded or unbounded.
|
indivisible and bounded or unbounded.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Participatory budgeting scenario}
|
|
||||||
\label{subsec:Participatory budgeting scenario}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Formally, a PB scenario consists of a set of projects $P = \{ p_1,\dots,p_m \}$
|
|
||||||
where each project $p\in P$ has an associated cost $c(p):P\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\section{Section 2}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\printbibliography
|
\printbibliography
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\end{document}
|
\end{document}
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user