In this paper, we address the selfish bin covering problem, which is greatly related both to the bin covering problem, and to the weighted majority game. What we are mainly concerned with is how much the lack of central coordination harms social welfare. Besides the standard PoA and PoS, which are based on Nash equilibrium, we also take into account the strong Nash equilibrium, and several new equilibrium concepts. For each equilibrium concept, the corresponding PoA and PoS are given, and the problems of computing an arbitrary equilibrium, as well as approximating the best one, are also considered.
The characteristic function is defined as: @math iff @math ; @math otherwise. An interesting phenomenon in WMG is that the bargaining powers of players usually are not proportional to their weights. For a simple example, there are 3 players in total, their weights are 3, 4, 5, respectively, and the quota is 7, then all the three players have the same bargaining power! So a central topic in WMG is how to measure the bargaining powers of the players. There are mainly four recognized ways: the Shapley-Shubic index ( @cite_19 ), the Banzhaf index ( @cite_0 ), the Holler-Packel index ( @cite_6 @cite_20 ), and the Deegen-Packel index ( @cite_12 ).
@cite_6 @cite_0 @cite_19 @cite_12 @cite_20
2102171270 2015247315 2005524240 2269108872
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. 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. 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. 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.