We study the inverse power index problem for weighted voting games: the problem of finding a weighted voting game in which the power of the players is as close as possible to a certain target distribution. Our goal is to find algorithms that solve this problem exactly. Thereto, we study various subclasses of simple games, and their associated representation methods. We survey algorithms and impossibility results for the synthesis problem, i.e., converting a representation of a simple game into another representation. We contribute to the synthesis problem by showing that it is impossible to compute in polynomial time the list of ceiling coalitions (also known as shift-maximal losing coalitions) of a game from its list of roof coalitions (also known as shift-minimal winning coalitions), and vice versa. Then, we proceed by studying the problem of enumerating the set of weighted voting games. We present first a naive algorithm for this, running in doubly exponential time. Using our knowledge of the synthesis problem, we then improve on this naive algorithm, and we obtain an enumeration algorithm that runs in quadratic exponential time (that is, O(2^(n^2) p(n)) for a polynomial p). Moreover, we show that this algorithm runs in output-polynomial time, making it the best possible enumeration algorithm up to a polynomial factor. Finally, we propose an exact anytime algorithm for the inverse power index problem that runs in exponential time. This algorithm is straightforward and general: it computes the error for each game enumerated, and outputs the game that minimizes this error. By the genericity of our approach, our algorithm can be used to find a weighted voting game that optimizes any exponential time computable function. We implement our algorithm for the case of the normalized Banzhaf index, and we perform experiments in order to study performance and error convergence.
Alon and Edelman observe that we need to know estimates of what power indices are achievable in simple games, in order to analyze the accuracy of these kinds of iterative algorithms, i.e., there is a need for information about the distribution of power indices in @math . As a first step into solving this problem, they prove in @cite_56 a specific result for the case of the Banzhaf index for monotonic simple games.
@cite_56
2103691541 2163300279 2038127015 1570872913 2015247315 2144872768 2102171270 2076786454 2101522887 2122807012 2043836864 1977013508 1977911709 1788052381 2125150859 2143039680 2005690414 2057956432 2269108872 2005524240
Many multiagent domains where cooperation among agents is crucial to achieving a common goal can be modeled as coalitional games. However, in many of these domains, agents are unequal in their power to affect the outcome of the game. Prior research on weighted voting games has explored power indices, which reflect how much "real power" a voter has. Although primarily used for voting games, these indices can be applied to any simple coalitional game. Computing these indices is known to be computationally hard in various domains, so one must sometimes resort to approximate methods for calculating them. We suggest and analyze randomized methods to approximate power indices such as the Banzhaf power index and the Shapley---Shubik power index. Our approximation algorithms do not depend on a specific representation of the game, so they can be used in any simple coalitional game. Our methods are based on testing the game's value for several sample coalitions. We show that no approximation algorithm can do much better for general coalitional games, by providing lower bounds for both deterministic and randomized algorithms for calculating power indices. We also provide empirical results regarding our method, and show that it typically achieves much better accuracy and confidence than those required. Many multiagent domains where cooperation among agents is crucial to achieving a common goal can be modeled as coalitional games. However, in many of these domains, agents are unequal in their power to affect the outcome of the game. Prior research on weighted voting games has explored power indices, which reflect how much "real power" a voter has. Although primarily used for voting games, these indices can be applied to any simple coalitional game. Computing these indices is known to be computationally hard in various domains, so one must sometimes resort to approximate methods for calculating them. We suggest and analyze randomized methods to approximate power indices such as the Banzhaf power index and the Shapley-Shubik power index. Our approximation algorithms do not depend on a specific representation of the game, so they can be used in any simple coalitional game. Our methods are based on testing the game's value for several sample coalitions. We also show that no approximation algorithm can do much better for general coalitional games, by providing lower bounds for both deterministic and randomized algorithms for calculating power indices. In this paper, we prove that both problems for calculating the Banzhaf power index and the Shapley-Shubik power index for weighted majority games are NP-complete. We study the complexity of the following problem: Given two weighted voting games G? and G?? that each contain a player p, in which of these games is p's power index value higher? We study this problem with respect to both the Shapley-Shubik power index [16] and the Banzhaf power index [3,6]. Our main result is that for both of these power indices the problem is complete for probabilistic polynomial time (i.e., is PP-complete). We apply our results to partially resolve some recently proposed problems regarding the complexity of weighted voting games. We also show that, unlike the Banzhaf power index, the Shapley-Shubik power index is not #P-parsimonious-complete. This finding sets a hard limit on the possible strengthenings of a result of Deng and Papadimitriou [5], who showed that the Shapley-Shubik power index is #P-metric-complete. A simple game is a pair consisting of a finite set N of players and a set of winning coalitions. (Vector-) weighted majority games ((V) WMG) are a special case of simple games, in which an integer (vector) weight can be assigned to each player and there is a quota which a coalition has to achieve in order to win. Binary decision diagrams (BDDs) are used as compact representations for Boolean functions and sets of subsets. This paper shows, how a quasi-reduced and ordered BDD (QOBDD) of the winning coalitions of a (V) WMG can be build, how one can compute the minimal winning coalitions and how one can easily compute the Banzhaf, Shapley-Shubik, Holler-Packel and Deegan-Packel indices of the players. E.g. in case of weighted majority games it is shown that the Banzhaf and Holler-Packel indices of all players can be computed in expected time and in general, the Banzhaf indices can be computed in time linear in the size of the QOBDD representation of the winning coalitions. Other running times are proven as well. The algorithms were tested on some real world games, e.g. the International Monetary Fund and the EU Treaty of Nice. For measuring an individual's voting power of a voting game, some power indices are proposed. In this paper, we discuss the problems for calculating the Shapley-Shubik index, the Banzhaf index and the Deegan-Packel index of weighted majority games. Weighted voting is a classic model of cooperation among agents in decision-making domains. In such games, each player has a weight, and a coalition of players wins the game if its total weight meets or exceeds a given quota. A player's power in such games is usually not directly proportional to his weight, and is measured by a power index, the most prominent among which are the Shapley-Shubik index and the Banzhaf index. In this paper, we investigate by how much a player can change his power, as measured by the Shapley-Shubik index or the Banzhaf index, by means of a false-name manipulation, i.e., splitting his weight among two or more identities. For both indices, we provide upper and lower bounds on the effect of weight-splitting. We then show that checking whether a beneficial split exists is NP-hard, and discuss efficient algorithms for restricted cases of this problem, as well as randomized algorithms for the general case. We also provide an experimental evaluation of these algorithms. Finally, we examine related forms of manipulative behavior, such as annexation, where a player subsumes other players, or merging, where several players unite into one. We characterize the computational complexity of such manipulations and provide limits on their effects. For the Banzhaf index, we describe a new paradox, which we term the Annexation Non-monotonicity Paradox. Measures of (a priori) power play a useful role in assessing the character of interpersonal interaction found in collective decision making bodies. We propose and axiomatically characterize an alternative power index to the familiarShapley Shubik andBanzhaf indices which can be used for such purposes. The index presented is shown to be unique for the class of simplen-person games. By subsequent generalization of the index and its axioms to the class ofn-person games in characteristic function form we obtain an analog to theShapley value. Preference aggregation is used in a variety of multiagent applications, and as a result, voting theory has become an important topic in multiagent system research. However, power indices (which reflect how much "real power" a voter has in a weighted voting system) have received relatively little attention, although they have long been studied in political science and economics. The Banzhaf power index is one of the most popular; it is also well-defined for any simple coalitional game. In this paper, we examine the computational complexity of calculating the Banzhaf power index within a particular multiagent domain, a network flow game. Agents control the edges of a graph; a coalition wins if it can send a flow of a given size from a source vertex to a target vertex. The relative power of each edge agent reflects its significance in enabling such a flow, and in real-world networks could be used, for example, to allocate resources for maintaining parts of the network. We show that calculating the Banzhaf power index of each agent in this network flow domain is #P-complete. We also show that for some restricted network flow domains there exists a polynomial algorithm to calculate agents' Banzhaf power indices. This paper is a twofold contribution. First, it contributes to the problem of enumerating some classes of simple games and in particular provides the number of weighted games with minimum and the number of weighted games for the dual class as well. Second, we focus on the special case of bipartite complete games with minimum, and we compare and rank these games according to the behavior of some efficient power indices of players of type 1 (or of type 2). The main result of this second part establishes all allowable rankings of these games when the Shapley-Shubik power index is used on players of type 1. Let ( F ) be a family of subsets of the ground set [n] = 1, 2, . . . , n . For each ( i [n] ) we let ( p( F ,i) ) be the number of pairs of subsets that differ in the element i and exactly one of them is in ( F ). We interpret ( p( F ,i) ) as the influence of that element. The normalized Banzhaf vector of ( F ), denoted ( B( F ) ), is the vector ( (B( F ,1), ,B( F ,n)) ), where ( B( F ,i)= p( F ,i) p( F ) ) and ( p( F ) ) is the sum of all ( p( F ,i) ). The Banzhaf vector has been studied in the context of measuring voting power in voting games as well as in Boolean circuit theory. In this paper we investigate which non-negative vectors of sum 1 can be closely approximated by Banzhaf vectors of simple voting games. In particular, we show that if a vector has most of its weight concentrated in k < n coordinates, then it must be essentially the Banzhaf vector of some simple voting game with n − k dummy voters. This paper proposes to rely on power indices to measure the amount of control held by individual shareholders in corporate networks. The value of the indices is determined by a complex voting game viewed as the composition of interlocked weighted majority games; the compound game reflects the structure of shareholdings. The paper describes an integrated algorithmic approach which allows to deal efficiently with the complexity of computing power indices in shareholding networks, irrespective of their size or structure. In particular, the approach explicitly accounts for the presence of float and of cyclic shareholding relationships. It has been successfully applied to the analysis of real-world financial networks. The Banzhaf index of power in a voting situation depends on the number of ways in which each voter can effect a “swing” in the outcome. It is comparable---but not actually equivalent---to the better-known Shapley-Shubik index, which depends on the number of alignments or “orders of support” in which each voter is pivotal. This paper investigates some properties of the Banzhaf index, the main topics being its derivation from axioms and its behavior in weighted-voting models when the number of small voters tends to infinity. These matters have previously been studied from the Shapley-Shubik viewpoint, but the present work reveals some striking differences between the two indices. The paper also attempts to promote better communication and less duplication of mathematical effort by identifying and describing several other theories, formally equivalent to Banzhaf’s, that are found in fields ranging from sociology to electrical engineering. An extensive bibliography is provided. An important aspect of mechanism design in social choice protocols and multiagent systems is to discourage insincere and manipulative behaviour. We examine the computational complexity of false-name manipulation in weighted voting games which are an important class of coalitional voting games. Weighted voting games have received increased interest in the multiagent community due to their compact representation and ability to model coalitional formation scenarios. Bachrach and Elkind in their AAMAS 2008 paper examined divide and conquer false-name manipulation in weighted voting games from the point of view of Shapley-Shubik index. We analyse the corresponding case of the Banzhaf index and check how much the Banzhaf index of a player increases or decreases if it splits up into sub-players. A pseudo-polynomial algorithm to find the optimal split is also provided. Bachrach and Elkind also mentioned manipulation via merging as an open problem. In the paper, we examine the cases where a player annexes other players or merges with them to increase their Banzhaf index or Shapley-Shubik index payoff. We characterize the computational complexity of such manipulations and provide limits to the manipulation. The annexation non-monotonicity paradox is also discovered in the case of the Banzhaf index. The results give insight into coalition formation and manipulation. In general in an organisation whose system of governance involves weighted voting, a member's weight in terms of the number of votes and the formal power it represents differ. Power indices provide a means of analysing this difference. The paper uses new algorithms for computing power indices for large games. Three analyses are carried out: (1) the distribution of Banzhaf voting power among members in 1999; the results show that the United States has considerably more power over ordinary decisions than its weight of 17 but that the use of special supermajorities limits its power; (2) the effect of varying the majority requirement on the power of the IMF to act and the powers of members to prevent and initiate action (Coleman indices); the results show the effect of supermajorities severely limits the power to act and therefore renders the voting system ineffective in democratic terms, also the sovereignty of the United States within the IMF is effectively limited to just the power of veto; (3) the paper proposes the determination of the weights instrumentally by means of an iterative algorithm to give the required power distribution; this would be a useful procedure for determining appropriate changes in weights consequent on changes to individual countries' quotas; this is applied to the 1999 data. Policy recommendations are, first, that the IMF use only simple majority voting, and discontinue using special supermajorities, and, second, allocate voting weight instrumentally using power indices. We consider computational aspects of a game theoretic approach to network reliability. Consider a network where failure of one node may disrupt communication between two other nodes. We model this network as a simple coalitional game, called the vertex Connectivity Game (CG). In this game, each agent owns a vertex, and controls all the edges going to and from that vertex. A coalition of agents wins if it fully connects a certain subset of vertices in the graph, called the primary vertices. We show that power indices, which express an agent's ability to affect the outcome of the vertex connectivity game, can be used to identify significant possible points of failure in the communication network, and can thus be used to increase network reliability. We show that in general graphs, calculating the Banzhaf power index is #P-complete, but suggest a polynomial algorithm for calculating this index in trees. We also show a polynomial algorithm for computing the core of a CG, which allows a stable division of payments to coalition agents. Preference aggregation is used in a variety of multiagent applications, and as a result, voting theory has become an important topic in multiagent system research. However, power indices (which reflect how much "real power" a voter has in a weighted voting system) have received relatively little attention, although they have long been studied in political science and economics. We consider a particular multiagent domain, a threshold network flow game. Agents control the edges of a graph; a coalition wins if it can send a flow that exceeds a given threshold from a source vertex to a target vertex. The relative power of each edge agent reflects its significance in enabling such a flow, and in real-world networks could be used, for example, to allocate resources for maintaining parts of the network. We examine the computational complexity of calculating two prominent power indices, the Banzhaf index and the Shapley-Shubik index, in this network flow domain. We also consider the complexity of calculating the core in this domain. The core can be used to allocate, in a stable manner, the gains of the coalition that is established. We show that calculating the Shapley-Shubik index in this network flow domain is NP-hard, and that calculating the Banzhaf index is #P-complete. Despite these negative results, we show that for some restricted network flow domains there exists a polynomial algorithm for calculating agents' Banzhaf power indices. We also show that computing the core in this game can be performed in polynomial time. Weighted voting games are frequently used in decision making. Each voter has a weight and a proposal is accepted if the weight sum of the supporting voters exceeds a quota. One line of research is the efficient computation of so-called power indices measuring the influence of a voter. We treat the inverse problem: Given an influence vector and a power index, determine a weighted voting game such that the distribution of influence among the voters is as close as possible to the given target value. We present exact algorithms and computational results for the Shapley-Shubik and the (normalized) Banzhaf power index. Weighted voting games provide a simple model of decision-making in human societies and multi-agent systems. Such games are described by a set of players, a list of [email protected]? weights, and a quota; a coalition of the players is said to be winning if the total weight of its members meets or exceeds the quota. The power of a player in a weighted voting game is traditionally identified with her Shapley-Shubik index or her Banzhaf index, two classic power measures that reflect the [email protected]?s marginal contribution under different coalition formation scenarios. In this paper, we investigate by how much one can change a [email protected]?s power, as measured by these indices, by modifying the quota. We give tight bounds on the changes in the individual [email protected]?s power that can result from a change in quota. We then describe an efficient algorithm for determining whether there is a value of the quota that makes a given player a dummy, i.e., reduces her power (as measured by both indices) to 0. We also study how the choice of quota can affect the relative power of the players. Finally, we investigate scenarios where [email protected]?s choice in setting the quota is constrained. We show that optimally choosing between two values of the quota is complete for the complexity class PP, which is believed to be significantly more powerful than NP. On the other hand, we empirically demonstrate that even small changes in quota can have a significant effect on a [email protected]?s power. In this paper, we introduce a simple coalition formation game in the environment of bidding, which is a special case of the weighted majority game (WMG), and is named the weighted simple-majority game (WSMG). In WSMG, payoff is allocated to the winners proportional to the players’ powers, which can be measured in various ways. We define a new kind of stability: the counteraction-stability (C-stability), where any potential deviating players will confront counteractions of the other players. We show that C-stable coalition structures in WSMG always contains a minimal winning coalition of minimum total power. For the variant where powers are measured directly by their weights, we show that it is NP-hard to find a C-stable coalition structure and design a pseudo-polynomial time algorithm. Sensitivity analysis for this variant, which shows many interesting properties, is also done. We also prove that it is NP-hard to compute the Holler-Packel indices in WSMGs, and hence in WMGs as well.