We investigate the manipulation of power indices in TU-cooperative games by stimulating (subject to a budget constraint) changes in the propensity of other players to participate to the game. We display several algorithms that show that the problem is often tractable for so-called network centrality games and influence attribution games, as well as an example when optimal manipulation is intractable, even though computing power indices is feasible.
The Internet and social media have fuelled enormous interest in social network analysis. New tools continue to be developed and used to analyse our personal connections, with particular emphasis on detecting communities or identifying key individuals in a social network. This raises privacy concerns that are likely to exacerbate in the future. With this in mind, we ask the question ‘Can individuals or groups actively manage their connections to evade social network analysis tools?’ By addressing this question, the general public may better protect their privacy, oppressed activist groups may better conceal their existence and security agencies may better understand how terrorists escape detection. We first study how an individual can evade ‘node centrality’ analysis while minimizing the negative impact that this may have on his or her influence. We prove that an optimal solution to this problem is difficult to compute. Despite this hardness, we demonstrate how even a simple heuristic, whereby attention is restricted to the individual’s immediate neighbourhood, can be surprisingly effective in practice; for example, it could easily disguise Mohamed Atta’s leading position within the World Trade Center terrorist network. We also study how a community can increase the likelihood of being overlooked by community-detection algorithms. We propose a measure of concealment—expressing how well a community is hidden—and use it to demonstrate the effectiveness of a simple heuristic, whereby members of the community either ‘unfriend’ certain other members or ‘befriend’ some non-members in a coordinated effort to camouflage their community. We examine the impact of independent agents failures on the solutions of cooperative games, focusing on totally balanced games and the more specific subclass of convex games. We follow the reliability extension model, recently proposed in [1] and show that a (approximately) totally balanced (or convex) game remains (approximately) totally balanced (or convex) when independent agent failures are introduced or when the failure probabilities increase. One implication of these results is that any reliability extension of a totally balanced game has a non-empty core. We propose an algorithm to compute such a core imputation with high probability. We conclude by outlining the effect of failures on non-emptiness of the core in cooperative games, especially in totally balanced games and simple games, thereby extending observations in [1]. We examine agent failures in weighted voting games. In our cooperative game model, R-WVG, each agent has a weight and a survival probability, and the value of an agent coalition is the probability that its surviving members would have a total weight exceeding a threshold. We propose algorithms for computing the value of a coalition, finding stable payoff allocations, and estimating the power of agents. We provide simulation results showing that on average the stability level of a game increases as the failure probabilities of the agents increase. This conforms to several recent results showing that failures increase stability in cooperative games. In 1992, Bartholdi, Tovey, and Trick opened the study of control attacks on elections-- attempts to improve the election outcome by such actions as adding deleting candidates or voters. That work has led to many results on how algorithms can be used to find attacks on elections and how complexity-theoretic hardness results can be used as shields against attacks. However, all the work in this line has assumed that the attacker employs just a single type of attack. In this paper, we model and study the case in which the attacker launches a multipronged (i.e., multimode) attack. We do so to more realistically capture the richness of real-life settings. For example, an attacker might simultaneously try to suppress some voters, attract new voters into the election, and introduce a spoiler candidate. Our model provides a unified framework for such varied attacks. By constructing polynomialtime multiprong attack algorithms we prove that for various election systems even such concerted, flexible attacks can be perfectly planned in deterministic polynomial time. We study the complexity of influencing elections through bribery: How computationally complex is it for an external actor to determine whether by a certain amount of bribing voters a specified candidate can be made the election's winner? We study this problem for election systems as varied as scoring protocols and Dodgson voting, and in a variety of settings regarding homogeneous-vs.-nonhomogeneous electorate bribability, bounded-size-vs.-arbitrary-sized candidate sets, weighted-vs.-unweighted voters, and succinct-vs.-nonsuccinct input specification. We obtain both polynomial-time bribery algorithms and proofs of the intractability of bribery, and indeed our results show that the complexity of bribery is extremely sensitive to the setting. For example, we find settings in which bribery is NP-complete but manipulation (by voters) is in P, and we find settings in which bribing weighted voters is NP-complete but bribing voters with individual bribe thresholds is in P. For the broad class of elections (including plurality, Borda, k-approval, and veto) known as scoring protocols, we prove a dichotomy result for bribery of weighted voters: We find a simple-to-evaluate condition that classifies every case as either NP-complete or in P. 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. We study the effects of bidder collaboration in all-pay auctions. We analyse both mergers, where the remaining players are aware of the agreement between the cooperating participants, and collusion, where the remaining players are unaware of this agreement. We examine two scenarios: the sum-profit model where the auctioneer obtains the sum of all submitted bids, and the max-profit model of crowdsourcing contests where the auctioneer can only use the best submissions and thus obtains only the winning bid. We show that while mergers do not change the expected utility of the participants, or the principal's utility in the sum-profit model, collusion transfers the utility from the non-colluders to the colluders. Surprisingly, we find that in some cases such collaboration can increase the social welfare. Moreover, mergers and, curiously, also collusion can even be beneficial to the auctioneer under certain conditions.  Hedonic games model agents that decide which other agents they will join, given some preferences on other agents. We study Sybil attacks on such games, by a malicious agent which introduces multiple false identities, so that the outcome of the game is more interesting for itself. First taking Nash stability as the solution concept, we consider two simple manipulations, and show that they are essentially the only possible Sybil manipulations. Moreover, small experiments show that they are seldom possible in random games. We exhibit another simple manipulation on the concepts of (contractual) individual stability afterwards. Then we show that such hedonic games are very sensitive to Sybil manipulations, which contrasts sharply with the Nash case. Procuring multiple agents with different ability levels to independently solve the same task is common in labor markets, crowdsourcing environments and research and development projects due to two reasons: some agents may fail to provide a satisfactory solution, and the redundancy increases the quality of the best solution found. However, incentivizing large number of agents to compete for one task is difficult; agents need fair ex-ante guaranteed payoffs that consider their ability levels and failure rates to exert efforts. We model such domains as a cooperative game called the Max-Game, where each agent has a weight representing its ability level, and the value of an agent coalition is the maximal weight of the agents in the coalition. When agents may fail, we redefine the value of a coalition as the expected maximal weight of its surviving members. We analyze the core, the Shapley value, and the Banzhaf index as methods of payoff division. Surprisingly, the latter two, which are usually computationally hard, can be computed in polynomial time. Finally, we initiate the study of a new form of sabotage where agents may be incentivized to influence the failure probabilities of their peers, and show that no such incentive is present in a restricted case of Max-Games. 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.  We propose a natural model for agent failures in congestion games. In our model, each of the agents may fail to participate in the game, introducing uncertainty regarding the set of active agents. We examine how such uncertainty may change the Nash equilibria (NE) of the game. We prove that although the perturbed game induced by the failure model is not always a congestion game, it still admits at least one pure Nash equilibrium. Then, we turn to examine the effect of failures on the maximal social cost in any NE of the perturbed game. We show that in the limit case where failure probability is negligible new equilibria never emerge, and that the social cost may decrease but it never increases. For the case of nonnegligible failure probabilities, we provide a full characterization of the maximal impact of failures on the social cost under worst-case equilibrium outcomes.