We study the cost sharing problem for cooperative games in situations where the cost function @math is not available via oracle queries, but must instead be derived from data, represented as tuples @math , for different subsets @math of players. We formalize this approach, which we call statistical cost sharing, and consider the computation of the core and the Shapley value, when the tuples are drawn from some distribution @math . Previous work by in this setting showed how to compute cost shares that satisfy the core property with high probability for limited classes of functions. We expand on their work and give an algorithm that computes such cost shares for any function with a non-empty core. We complement these results by proving an inapproximability lower bound for a weaker relaxation. We then turn our attention to the Shapley value. We first show that when cost functions come from the family of submodular functions with bounded curvature, @math , the Shapley value can be approximated from samples up to a @math factor, and that the bound is tight. We then define statistical analogues of the Shapley axioms, and derive a notion of statistical Shapley value. We show that these can always be approximated arbitrarily well for general functions over any distribution @math .
 Each one of n users consumes an idiosyncratic commodity produced in indivisible units. The n commodities are jointly produced by a central facility and total cost must be shared by the users. A "sequential stand alone mechanism" shares costs incrementally according to a fixed ordering of the users: the first user always pays stand alone cost, the second pays the stand alone cost of the first two users minus that of the first and so on. If the second derivatives of costs are of a constant sign, such a method yields a unique strong equilibrium at every profile of convex preferences in the game where each user chooses his own demand. This equilibrium, in turn, defines a coalition strategy-proof social choice function. Under decreasing marginal costs and submodular costs, the sequential stand alone mechanisms are almost characterized by these properties; the only exception is the binary demand case (each agent consumes zero or one unit) where a rich family of cost sharing methods (the Shapley value among them) yields a coalition strategy-proof equilibrium selection. Under increasing marginal costs and supermodular costs, coalition strategy-proofness characterizes a richer family of cost sharing methods: they give out one unit at a time while charging marginal costs, with the users taking turns according to a sequence fixed in advance. These methods contain serial cost sharing as a limit case. The Shapley value is a key solution concept for coalitional games in general and voting games in particular. Its main advantage is that it provides a unique and fair solution, but its main drawback is the complexity of computing it (e.g., for voting games this complexity is #p-complete). However, given the importance of the Shapley value and voting games, a number of approximation methods have been developed to overcome this complexity. Among these, Owen's multi-linear extension method is the most time efficient, being linear in the number of players. Now, in addition to speed, the other key criterion for an approximation algorithm is its approximation error. On this dimension, the multi-linear extension method is less impressive. Against this background, this paper presents a new approximation algorithm, based on randomization, for computing the Shapley value of voting games. This method has time complexity linear in the number of players, but has an approximation error that is, on average, lower than Owen's. In addition to this comparative study, we empirically evaluate the error for our method and show how the different parameters of the voting game affect it. Specifically, we show the following effects. First, as the number of players in a voting game increases, the average percentage error decreases. Second, as the quota increases, the average percentage error decreases. Third, the error is different for players with different weights; players with weight closer to the mean weight have a lower error than those with weight further away. We then extend our approximation to the more general k-majority voting games and show that, for n players, the method has time complexity O(k^2n) and the upper bound on its approximation error is O(k^2 n). Network design is a fundamental problem for which it is important to understand the effects of strategic behavior. Given a collection of self-interested agents who want to form a network connecting certain endpoints, the set of stable solutions—the Nash equilibria—may look quite different from the centrally enforced optimum. We study the quality of the best Nash equilibrium, and refer to the ratio of its cost to the optimum network cost as the price of stability. The best Nash equilibrium solution has a natural meaning of stability in this context—it is the optimal solution that can be proposed from which no user will defect. We consider the price of stability for network design with respect to one of the most widely studied protocols for network cost allocation, in which the cost of each edge is divided equally between users whose connections make use of it; this fair-division scheme can be derived from the Shapley value and has a number of basic economic motivations. We show that the price of stability for network design with respect to this fair cost allocation is @math , where @math is the number of users, and that a good Nash equilibrium can be achieved via best-response dynamics in which users iteratively defect from a starting solution. This establishes that the fair cost allocation protocol is in fact a useful mechanism for inducing strategic behavior to form near-optimal equilibria. We discuss connections to the class of potential games defined by Monderer and Shapley, and extend our results to cases in which users are seeking to balance network design costs with latencies in the constructed network, with stronger results when the network has only delays and no construction costs. We also present bounds on the convergence time of best-response dynamics, and discuss extensions to a weighted game. 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.   Coalitional games allow subsets (coalitions) of players to cooperate to receive a collective payoff. This payoff is then distributed “fairly” among the members of that coalition according to some division scheme. Various solution concepts have been proposed as reasonable schemes for generating fair allocations. The Shapley value is one classic solution concept: player i’s share is precisely equal to i’s expected marginal contribution if the players join the coalition one at a time, in a uniformly random order. In this paper, we consider the class of supermodular games (sometimes called convex games), and give a fully polynomial-time randomized approximation scheme (FPRAS) to compute the Shapley value to within a (1 ±e) factor in monotone supermodular games. We show that this result is tight in several senses: no deterministic algorithm can approximate Shapley value as well, no randomized algorithm can do better, and both monotonicity and supermodularity are required for the existence of an efficient (1 ±e)-approximation algorithm. We also argue that, relative to supermodularity, monotonicity is a mild assumption, and we discuss how to transform supermodular games to be monotonic. 