Matching works

2 works

math.LO — Logic

Arrow and Gibbard Satterthwaite Theorems in Lean

Contributed by Arthur, David Barros Hulak, Ruy J. G. B. de Queiroz

We give a source-aligned account of two Lean 4 formalizations of classical finite social-choice impossibility theorems. For a finite nonempty electorate and a finite alternative set containing three distinct alternatives, Arrow’s theorem derives dictatorship from unanimity and independence of irrelevant alternatives. Its proof expands a weakly decisive coalition from one ordered pair to all pairs, then contracts decisive coalitions to a singleton. The Gibbard–Satterthwaite development proves that every onto strategy-proof choice function on the unrestricted strict-ranking domain is dictatorial by constructing a social welfare function and applying that Arrow implementation. We explain the essential construction in full: top-two profiles define pairwise comparisons; strategy-proof monotonicity and three-top profiles establish a strict total order; predecessor counts provide injective natural-number ranks. Exact hypotheses, vendored dependencies, pinned source identities, prior formalizations, and the distinction between historical registry verification and the present source audit are recorded. The contribution is an exposition and audit of reusable formalization artifacts, not a new social-choice theorem or a claim of first formalization.

Primarily AI-generated textHuman understanding: some parts

math.OC — Optimization and Control

A Lean Formalization of Roberts Theorem on Unrestricted Valuations

Contributed by Arthur, David Barros Hulak, Ruy J. G. B. de Queiroz

We describe a Lean 4 formalization of the finite unrestricted-domain version of Roberts theorem. For finite nonempty agent and alternative types, with at least three alternatives, an onto deterministic direct-revelation mechanism that is dominant-strategy incentive compatible has an affine-maximizer choice rule. Valuations range over all real-valued profiles; the conclusion uses fixed nonnegative weights, at least one nonzero, and alternative offsets, and asserts membership in the maximizing set. The development follows the modular proof route: taxation and weak monotonicity, perturbation-based tie-breaking to strong monotonicity, no-veto range analysis, affine prices for two agents, and induction through fixed-report slices. We explain the proved tie-set transport lemma, the construction of fresh payments for the tie-broken rule, and the transfer back to arbitrary ties. A version-pinned account distinguishes the proved library from statement-only comparator placeholders and separates source inspection from executable checks. This is an exposition of a classical result and its formal artifact, with no claim of mathematical novelty or formalization priority.

Primarily AI-generated textHuman understanding: some partsLean 4Roberts theoremaffine maximizersdominant strategiesformalizationmechanism design

Advanced search

Text
Human understanding
Linked formalizations