Fair Compromises in Participatory Budgeting: a Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17433v1
• Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:46:13 GMT
• Title: Fair Compromises in Participatory Budgeting: a Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning Approach
• Authors: Hugh Adams, Srijoni Majumdar, Evangelos Pournaras,
• Abstract summary: Participatory budgeting requires voters to make decisions on projects which can lead to choice overload'<n>A multi-agent reinforcement learning approach to decision support can make decision making easier for voters by identifying voting strategies that increase the winning proportion of their vote.<n>This paper presents a novel, ethically aligned approach to decision support using multi-agent deep reinforcement learning modelling.
• Score: 0.8192907805418581
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Participatory budgeting is a method of collectively understanding and addressing spending priorities where citizens vote on how a budget is spent, it is regularly run to improve the fairness of the distribution of public funds. Participatory budgeting requires voters to make decisions on projects which can lead to ``choice overload". A multi-agent reinforcement learning approach to decision support can make decision making easier for voters by identifying voting strategies that increase the winning proportion of their vote. This novel approach can also support policymakers by highlighting aspects of election design that enable fair compromise on projects. This paper presents a novel, ethically aligned approach to decision support using multi-agent deep reinforcement learning modelling. This paper introduces a novel use of a branching neural network architecture to overcome scalability challenges of multi-agent reinforcement learning in a decentralized way. Fair compromises are found through optimising voter actions towards greater representation of voter preferences in the winning set. Experimental evaluation with real-world participatory budgeting data reveals a pattern in fair compromise: that it is achievable through projects with smaller cost.

Related papers

• Upgrading Democracies with Fairer Voting Methods [0.6282171844772421]
  We show how one can upgrade real-world democracies by using alternative preferential voting methods.<n>By rigorously assessing a new participatory budgeting approach applied in the city of Aarau, Switzerland, we unravel the striking voting outcomes.<n>We also reveal strong underlying democratic values exhibited by citizens who support fair voting methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T13:31:43Z)
• The Cost Perspective of Liquid Democracy: Feasibility and Control [11.66206813243775]
  We examine an approval-based model of Liquid Democracy with a budget constraint on voting and delegating costs.<n>We focus on minimizing overall costs, maintaining short delegation paths, and preventing excessive concentration of voting power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T14:59:56Z)
• Efficient Lower Bounding of Single Transferable Vote Election Margins [56.12949230611067]
  Single transferable vote (STV) is a system of preferential proportional voting employed in multi-seat elections.<n>The margin of victory, or simply'margin', is the smallest number of ballots that need to be manipulated to alter the set of winners.<n>Lower bounds on the margin can also be used for this purpose, in cases where exact margins are difficult to compute.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T13:39:23Z)
• Aligning AI with Public Values: Deliberation and Decision-Making for Governing Multimodal LLMs in Political Video Analysis [48.14390493099495]
  How AI models should deal with political topics has been discussed, but it remains challenging and requires better governance.<n>This paper examines the governance of large language models through individual and collective deliberation, focusing on politically sensitive videos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T03:17:38Z)
• Generative AI Voting: Fair Collective Choice is Resilient to LLM Biases and Inconsistencies [21.444936180683147]
  We show that complex preferential ballot formats exhibit significant inconsistencies compared to simpler majoritarian elections.<n>Strikingly though, by demonstrating for the first time in real-world a proportional representation of voters in direct democracy, we are also able to show that fair ballot aggregation methods, such as equal shares, prove to be a win-win.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T01:41:48Z)
• Rank, Pack, or Approve: Voting Methods in Participatory Budgeting [2.326556516716391]
  The Stanford Participatory Budgeting platform has been used to engage residents in more than 150 budgeting processes. We present a data set with anonymized budget opinions from these processes with K-approval, K-ranking or knapsack primary ballots. We use vote pairs with different voting methods to analyze the effect of voting methods on the cost of selected projects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T01:19:44Z)
• Consensus-based Participatory Budgeting for Legitimacy: Decision Support via Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning [3.3504365823045044]
  Participatory budgeting is a process where voting outcomes may not always be fair or inclusive. This paper introduces a novel and legitimate consensus-based participatory budgeting process. Voters are assisted to interact with each other to make viable compromises.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T16:16:23Z)
• Learning Personalized Decision Support Policies [56.949897454209186]
  $texttModiste$ is an interactive tool to learn personalized decision support policies.<n>We find that personalized policies outperform offline policies, and, in the cost-aware setting, reduce the incurred cost with minimal degradation to performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T17:53:34Z)
• Multi-Stage Decentralized Matching Markets: Uncertain Preferences and Strategic Behaviors [91.3755431537592]
  This article develops a framework for learning optimal strategies in real-world matching markets. We show that there exists a welfare-versus-fairness trade-off that is characterized by the uncertainty level of acceptance. We prove that participants can be better off with multi-stage matching compared to single-stage matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-13T19:25:52Z)
• Decentralized Reinforcement Learning: Global Decision-Making via Local Economic Transactions [80.49176924360499]
  We establish a framework for directing a society of simple, specialized, self-interested agents to solve sequential decision problems. We derive a class of decentralized reinforcement learning algorithms. We demonstrate the potential advantages of a society's inherent modular structure for more efficient transfer learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-05T16:41:09Z)
• Cost-Sensitive Portfolio Selection via Deep Reinforcement Learning [100.73223416589596]
  We propose a cost-sensitive portfolio selection method with deep reinforcement learning. Specifically, a novel two-stream portfolio policy network is devised to extract both price series patterns and asset correlations. A new cost-sensitive reward function is developed to maximize the accumulated return and constrain both costs via reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-06T06:28:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.