Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2609.17836

Coalition strategy-proof anonymous binary social choice in a countably infinite society

Abstract

We study anonymous binary social choice functions on the universal weak-preference domain when the society of voters is countably infinite. Voters may strictly support one of the two alternatives or be indifferent, and non-manipulability is required in the form of coalitional strategy-proofness. Full anonymity reduces the relevant information about a coalition not to its cardinality alone, but to its cardinality signature: finite of size \(k\), infinite with infinite complement, or cofinite with complement of size \(k\). Recording the signatures of the two strict-support coalitions yields an infinite triangular grid, ordered by increasing support for one alternative and decreasing support for the other. We prove that anonymous coalition strategy-proof binary social choice functions are exactly those obtained from super order closed subsets, i.e. upper sets, of this grid. We then give a geometric classification of these subsets. Unlike in the finite-voter case, they need not be generated by their minimal elements: countable infinity creates missing-boundary regions corresponding to finite opposition or cofinite strict support. We prove an exact representation of these subsets by genuine or missing-boundary corners, and derive a nonredundant parametrization by an antichain and, when necessary, one exceptional missing-boundary region. This yields four generalized zigzag forms and completes the infinite-society counterpart of the known geometric representation for finite electorates.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Achille Basile, K. P. S. Bhaskara Rao, Surekha Rao. 2026-09-15. Coalition strategy-proof anonymous binary social choice in a countably infinite society. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.17836

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Measurement of Trustworthiness of the Online Reviews

Online review platforms shape consumer decisions, yet reported ratings and comments may be unreliable when reviewers behave inconsistently. This paper models online reviews as a sequential choice problem and proposes a formal rationality pattern function that links a reviewer's current review to their revealed preference history. Building on a two-way consistency axiom for choices from nested sets, we derive an object-specific support trajectory and an associated degree measure in [0,1] (Average Propensity to Choose a Pattern, APCP) that quantifies review trustworthiness. The measure is designed to support information updating and reduce asymmetric information by discounting reviews that are inconsistent with past behavior. A worked example illustrates how the approach assigns trustworthiness grades to reviews for different objects and how these grades can complement aggregate rating statistics. Finally, a generalized theory has been established.

econ.TH

The Cesàro average criterion on infinite utility streams and its extensions

When evaluating policies that affect future generations, the most commonly used criterion is the discounted utilitarian rule. However, in terms of intergenerational fairness, it is difficult to justify prioritizing the current generation over future generations. This paper axiomatically examines impartial utilitarian rules over infinite-dimensional utility streams. We provide simple characterizations of the social welfare ordering that evaluates utility streams by their long-run average on the domain where the average exists. Furthermore, we derive the necessary and sufficient conditions for the same axioms to hold in a more general domain, the set of bounded utility streams. Some of these results are closely related to the Banach limits, a well-known generalization of the classical limit concept for streams. Thus, this paper can be seen as proposing an appealing subclass of Banach limits through axiomatic analysis.

econ.TH

The Institutional Window: Occupation- and Jurisdiction-Specific Calibration of Liability Signaling for Preserved Human Fallback Capability

Generative AI makes expert output uninformative about the human fallback capability its provider keeps in reserve. A liability commitment can signal that capability: a provider whose staff rescue more of the cases the AI fails pays damages less often, so the commitment certifies an asset built by keeping people on cases and lost by taking them off. This paper asks where contract law leaves room for such a signal. Four legal primitives map a posted cap into retained exposure and close the message space from both sides: litigation viability, the penalty doctrine, displacement of liability to the state or an indemnity pool, and mandatory control of standard terms. Where the law leaves an option of zero exposure, low types pool at zero, intermediate types separate on a schedule anchored at the mandatory floor, and high types pool at the ceiling; where it does not, separation starts at the bottom type. A statutory floor removes the lower pool but pushes the schedule toward the ceiling, so its net effect is not monotone. The penalty doctrine decides whether recovery adequate for deterrence can be restored by contract or only by investing in verifiability. Holding fallback skill constant demands more human engagement the less often the AI fails. A calibration to five occupations and twelve legal configurations in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States locates the binding margin of each cell and supports no ranking by legal family or contracting channel.

econ.TH