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.
There are two more recent interesting works on the voting game design problem. One is by Kurz @cite_62 . Kurz proposes an exact method using integer linear programming, for solving the weighted voting game design problem for both the Shapley-Shubik index and the Banzhaf index. The set of linear games is taken as the search space, and branch-and-bound techniques (along with various insights about the set of weighted voting games) are used in order to find in this set a weighted voting game with a power index closest to the target. Kurz does not provide a runtime analysis. The experiments performed show that the algorithm works well for small numbers of players. As mentioned in Section , our work is independent and differs from @cite_62 because we are interested in devising an algorithm with a provably good runtime. Moreover, the approach we take is different from that of @cite_62 , and the theory necessary to develop our algorithm can be considered interesting in itself.
@cite_62
1570872913 1788052381 2102171270 2103691541
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. 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. 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. 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.