A simple game (N, v) is given by a set N of n players and a partition of (2^N ) into a set ( L ) of losing coalitions L with value (v(L)=0 ) that is closed under taking subsets and a set ( W ) of winning coalitions W with (v(W)=1 ). Simple games with ( = _ p 0 _ W W ,L L p(L) p(W) 0 ).
Another way to measure the distance of a simple game to the class of weighted voting games is to use the dimension of a simple game @cite_29 , which is the smallest number of weighted voting games whose intersection equals a given simple game. However, computing the dimension of a simple game is -hard @cite_28 , and the largest dimension of a simple game with @math players is @math @cite_24 . Moreover, simple games with dimension 1 have @math , but @math may be arbitrarily large for simple games with dimension larger than 1. A simple game with @math players of type A and @math players of type B and minimal winning coalitions consisting of one player of each type has dimension 2 and @math . Hence there is no direct relation between the two distance measures. We also note that Gvozdeva, Hemaspaandra, and Slinko @cite_4 introduced two other distance parameters. One measures the power balance between small and large coalitions. The other one allows multiple thresholds instead of threshold 1 only. See @cite_4 for further details.
@cite_28 @cite_29 @cite_4 @cite_24
2050727325 2015247315 1605139543 2269108872
Simple games cover voting systems in which a single alternative, such as a bill or an amendment, is pitted against the status quo. A simple game or a yes–no voting system is a set of rules that specifies exactly which collections of “yea” votes yield passage of the issue at hand, each of these collections of “yea” voters forms a winning coalition. We are interested in performing a complexity analysis on problems defined on such families of games. This analysis as usual depends on the game representation used as input. We consider four natural explicit representations: winning, losing, minimal winning, and maximal losing. We first analyze the complexity of testing whether a game is simple and testing whether a game is weighted. We show that, for the four types of representations, both problems can be solved in polynomial time. Finally, we provide results on the complexity of testing whether a simple game or a weighted game is of a special type. We analyze strongness, properness, decisiveness and homogeneity, which are desirable properties to be fulfilled for a simple game. We finalize with some considerations on the possibility of representing a game in a more succinct representation showing a natural representation in which the recognition problem is hard. 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. Simple coalitional games are a fundamental class of cooperative games and voting games which are used to model coalition formation, resource allocation and decision making in computer science, artificial intelligence and multiagent systems. Although simple coalitional games are well studied in the domain of game theory and social choice, their algorithmic and computational complexity aspects have received less attention till recently. The computational aspects of simple coalitional games are of increased importance as these games are used by computer scientists to model distributed settings. This thesis fits in the wider setting of the interplay between economics and computer science which has led to the development of algorithmic game theory and computational social choice. A unified view of the computational aspects of simple coalitional games is presented here for the first time. Certain complexity results also apply to other coalitional games such as skill games and matching games. The following issues are given special consideration: influence of players, limit and complexity of manipulations in the coalitional games and complexity of resource allocation on networks. The complexity of comparison of influence between players in simple games is characterized. The simple games considered are represented by winning coalitions, minimal winning coalitions, weighted voting games or multiple weighted voting games. A comprehensive classification of weighted voting games which can be solved in polynomial time is presented. An efficient algorithm which uses generating functions and interpolation to compute an integer weight vector for target power indices is proposed. Voting theory, especially the Penrose Square Root Law, is used to investigate the fairness of a real life voting model. Computational complexity of manipulation in social choice protocols can determine whether manipulation is computationally feasible or not. The computational complexity and bounds of manipulation are considered from various angles including control, false-name manipulation and bribery. Moreover, the computational complexity of computing various cooperative game solutions of simple games in dierent representations is studied. Certain structural results regarding least core payos extend to the general monotone cooperative game. The thesis also studies a coalitional game called the spanning connectivity game. It is proved that whereas computing the Banzhaf values and Shapley-Shubik indices of such games is #P-complete, there is a polynomial time combinatorial algorithm to compute the nucleolus. The results have interesting significance for optimal strategies for the wiretapping game which is a noncooperative game defined on a network. 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.