Optimal Decision Mechanisms for Committees: Acquitting the Guilty

Deniz Kattwinkel,Alexander Winter
DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.07293
2024-07-10
Abstract:A group of privately informed agents chooses between two alternatives. How should the decision rule be designed if agents are known to be biased in favor of one of the options? We address this question by considering the Condorcet Jury Setting as a mechanism design problem. Applications include the optimal decision mechanisms for boards of directors, political committees, and trial juries. While we allow for any kind of mechanism, the optimal mechanism is a voting mechanism. In the terminology of the trial jury example: When jurors (agents) are more eager to convict than the lawmaker (principal), then the defendant should be convicted if and only if neither too many nor too few jurors vote to convict. This kind of mechanism accords with a judicial procedure from ancient Jewish law.
Theoretical Economics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: when a group of agents with private information (such as board members, political committee members or jury members) show bias towards an option in decision - making, how to design the optimal decision - making rules to aggregate these dispersed information and make the best social choice. Specifically, the paper explores, within the framework of the Condorcet jury model, how to design a voting mechanism when agents are more inclined towards a certain option (for example, jurors are more willing to convict the defendant), so that the final decision can reflect the real situation and also encourage agents to report their information truthfully. The author pays special attention to the fact that, in this case, the optimal decision - making mechanism is not a simple majority vote, but a specific form of interval mechanism, that is, an option is implemented only when the number of people voting for it is neither too large nor too small. ### Main contributions of the paper 1. **Introduction of the interval mechanism**: The paper proves that in the case of conflicting interests, the optimal decision - making mechanism is a non - monotonic interval mechanism, rather than the traditional single - cutoff mechanism. This mechanism allows a certain range for choosing a decision, thus better balancing the preferences of agents and the optimal choice of decision - makers. 2. **Explanation of the judicial process in ancient Jewish law**: The paper links the proposed interval mechanism with a strange provision in ancient Jewish law - if all jurors unanimously believe that the defendant is guilty, the defendant should be acquitted. This ancient judicial process actually reflects the idea of the non - monotonic voting rule proposed in the paper. 3. **Theoretical analysis and mathematical modeling**: Through strict mathematical modeling and linear programming methods, the paper proves the superiority of the interval mechanism in maximizing the expected benefits of decision - makers, and analyzes in detail the optimal mechanism forms under different parameter settings. ### Application scenarios The application scenarios of the paper include, but are not limited to: - **Company board of directors**: How to design the optimal decision - making mechanism when board members have different preferences for merger and acquisition cases. - **Political committee**: How to design the optimal voting rules when political committee members have different views on reform proposals. - **Court jury**: How to design the optimal judgment rules when jurors have different judgments on whether the defendant is guilty or not. In short, through in - depth research on the aggregation problem of dispersed information, this paper proposes a new method for designing decision - making mechanisms, aiming to overcome the limitations of the traditional majority voting mechanism, especially in cases where agents are biased.