Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Power in threshold network flow games

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preference aggregation is used in a variety of multiagent applications, and as a result, voting theory has become an important topic in multiagent system research. However, power indices (which reflect how much “real power” a voter has in a weighted voting system) have received relatively little attention, although they have long been studied in political science and economics. We consider a particular multiagent domain, a threshold network flow game. Agents control the edges of a graph; a coalition wins if it can send a flow that exceeds a given threshold from a source vertex to a target vertex. The relative power of each edge/agent reflects its significance in enabling such a flow, and in real-world networks could be used, for example, to allocate resources for maintaining parts of the network. We examine the computational complexity of calculating two prominent power indices, the Banzhaf index and the Shapley-Shubik index, in this network flow domain. We also consider the complexity of calculating the core in this domain. The core can be used to allocate, in a stable manner, the gains of the coalition that is established. We show that calculating the Shapley-Shubik index in this network flow domain is NP-hard, and that calculating the Banzhaf index is #P-complete. Despite these negative results, we show that for some restricted network flow domains there exists a polynomial algorithm for calculating agents’ Banzhaf power indices. We also show that computing the core in this game can be performed in polynomial time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bachrach, Y., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2007). Computing the Banzhaf power index in network flow games. In The 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007) (pp. 323–329). Honolulu: Hawaii.

  2. Banzhaf J.F. (1965). Weighted voting doesn’t work: A mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Review 19: 317–343

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bilbao, J. M. (2000). Cooperative games on combinatorial structures. Kluwer Publishers.

  4. Bilbao, J. M., Fernandez, J. R., Jimenez Losada, A., & Lopez, J. J. (2000). Generating functions for computing power indices efficiently. TOP (pp. 191–213).

  5. Conitzer, V., & Sandholm, T. (2003). Complexity of determining nonemptiness of the core. In Proceedings ACM EC-03 (pp. 230–231).

  6. Conitzer, V., & Sandholm, T. (2004). Computing shapley values, manipulating value division schemes, and checking core membership in multi-issue domains. In Proceedings of the AAAI-04.

  7. Deng X. and Papadimitriou C.H. (1994). On the complexity of cooperative solution concepts. Mathematics of Operations Research 19(2): 257–266

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Dubey P. and Shapley L. (1979). Mathematical properties of the Banzhaf power index. Mathematics of Operations Research 4(2): 99–131

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Ephrati, E., & Rosenschein, J. S. (1991). The Clarke Tax as a consensus mechanism among automated agents. In Proceedings of the Ninth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 173–178). California: Anaheim.

  10. Ephrati E. and Rosenschein J.S. (1997). A heuristic technique for multiagent planning. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 20: 13–67

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Fatima, S. S., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (2007). A randomized method for the Shapley value for the voting game. In The 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2007) (pp. 955–962). Hawaii: Honolulu.

  12. Ford L.R. Jr., and Fulkerson D.R. (1962). Flows in networks. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Fortune, S., Hopcroft, J., & Wyllie, J. (1980). The directed subgraph homeomorphism problem. TCS: Theoretical Computer Science, 10.

  14. Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. Freeman Press.

  15. Ghosh, S., Mundhe, M., Hernandez, K., & Sen, S. (1999). Voting for movies: The anatomy of a recommender system. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Autonomous Agents (pp. 434–435).

  16. Gillies, D. B. (1953). Some theorems on n-person games. PhD thesis, Princeton University.

  17. Haynes, T., Sen, S., Arora, N., & Nadella, R. (1997). An automated meeting scheduling system that utilizes user preferences. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Autonomous Agents (pp. 308–315).

  18. Hemaspaandra, E., Hemaspaandra, L., & Rothe, J. (2005). Anyone but him: The complexity of precluding an alternative. In Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Pittsburgh.

  19. Kalai, E., & Zemel, E. (1980). On totally balanced games and games of flow. Discussion Papers 413, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science, January 1980. http://ideas.repec.org/p/nwu/cmsems/413.html.

  20. Kalai E. and Zemel E. (1982). Generalized network problems yielding totally balanced games. Operations Research 30: 998–1008

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Laruelle, A. (1999). On the choice of a power index. Papers 99-10, Valencia—Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas.

  22. Leech D. (2002). Voting power in the governance of the international monetary fund. Annals of Operations Research 109(1–4): 375–397

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Leech D. (2003). Computing power indices for large voting games. Journal of Management Science 49(6): 831–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Machover M. and Felsenthal D.S. (2001). The treaty of nice and qualified majority voting. Social Choice and Welfare 18(3): 431–464

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Mann, I., & Shapley, L. S. (1960). Values of large games, iv: Evaluating the electoral college by Monte-Carlo techniques. Technical report, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

  26. Mann, I., & Shapley, L. S. (1962). Values of large games, VI: Evaluating the electoral college exactly. Technical report, The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

  27. Matsui Y. and Matsui T. (2000). A survey of algorithms for calculating power indices of weighted majority games. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan 43: 71–86

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Matsui Y. and Matsui T. (2001). NP-completeness for calculating power indices of weighted majority games. Theoretical Computer Science 263(1–2): 305–310

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Nisan N. and Ronen A. (2001). Algorithmic mechanism design. Games and Economic Behavior 35: 166–196

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Osborne M.J. and Rubenstein A. (1994). A course in game theory. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  31. Owen G. (1975). Multilinear extensions and the Banzhaf value. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 22(4): 741–750

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Procaccia, A. D., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2006). Junta distributions and the average-case complexity of manipulating elections. In The 5th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (pp. 497–504). Hakodate, Japan.

  33. Provan J.S. and Ball M.O. (1983). The complexity of counting cuts and of computing the probability that a graph is connected. SICOMP: SIAM Journal on Computing 12: 777–788

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Rosenschein, J. S., & Genesereth, M. R. (1985). Deals among rational agents. In Proceedings of the 9th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 91–99). Los Angeles, California.

  35. Roughgarden, T. (2001). Designing networks for selfish users is hard. In FOCS (pp. 472–481).

  36. Sandholm, T., & Lesser, V. (1995). Issues in automated negotiation and electronic commerce: Extending the contract net framework. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Multiagent Systems (ICMAS-95) (pp. 328–335). San Francisco.

  37. Shapley, L. S. (1953). A value for n-person games. Contributions to the Theory of Games (pp. 31–40).

  38. Shapley L.S. and Shubik M. (1954). A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. American Political Science Review 48: 787–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Straffin P. (1977). Homogeneity, independence and power indices. Public Choice 30: 107–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sun, X., & Fang, Q. (2005). Core stability of flow games. In J. Akiyama, W. Y. C. Chen, M. Kano, X. Li, & Q. Yu, (Eds.), CJCDGCGT, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4381, pp. 189–199). Springer.

  41. Valiant L.G. (1979). The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems. SIAM Journal on Computing 8: 410–421

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Wellman M.P. (1995). The economic approach to artificial intelligence. ACM Computing Surveys 27: 360–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering and Computer Science, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel

    Yoram Bachrach & Jeffrey S. Rosenschein

Authors
  1. Yoram Bachrach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey S. Rosenschein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoram Bachrach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bachrach, Y., Rosenschein, J.S. Power in threshold network flow games. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 18, 106–132 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9057-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-008-9057-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation