Advertisement

Power Indices in Spanning Connectivity Games

  • Haris Aziz
  • Oded Lachish
  • Mike Paterson
  • Rahul Savani
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5564)

Abstract

The Banzhaf index, Shapley-Shubik index and other voting power indices measure the importance of a player in a coalitional game. We consider a simple coalitional game called the spanning connectivity game (SCG) based on an undirected, unweighted multigraph, where edges are players. We examine the computational complexity of computing the voting power indices of edges in the SCG. It is shown that computing Banzhaf values is #P-complete and computing Shapley-Shubik indices or values is NP-hard for SCGs. Interestingly, Holler indices and Deegan-Packel indices can be computed in polynomial time. Among other results, it is proved that Banzhaf indices can be computed in polynomial time for graphs with bounded treewidth. It is also shown that for any reasonable representation of a simple game, a polynomial time algorithm to compute the Shapley-Shubik indices implies a polynomial time algorithm to compute the Banzhaf indices. This answers (positively) an open question of whether computing Shapley-Shubik indices for a simple game represented by the set of minimal winning coalitions is NP-hard.

Keywords

Network connectivity coalitional games Banzhaf index Shapley-Shubik index 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arnborg, S., Corneil, D.G., Proskurowski, A.: Complexity of finding embeddings in a k-tree. SIAM J. Algebraic Discrete Methods 8(2), 277–284 (1987)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnborg, S., Proskurowski, A.: Linear time algorithms for NP-hard problems restricted to partial k-trees. Discrete Appl. Math. 23(1), 11–24 (1989)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aziz, H.: Complexity of comparison of influence of players in simple games. In: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Computational Social Choice (COMSOC 2008), pp. 61–72 (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aziz, H., Lachich, O., Paterson, M., Savani, R.: Wiretapping: the nucleolus of connectivity (submitted, 2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bacher, R.: Determinants of matrices related to the Pascal triangle. J. Théor. des Nombres Bordeaux 14, 19–41 (2002)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bachrach, Y., Markakis, E., Procaccia, A.D., Rosenschein, J.S., Saberi, A.: Approximating power indices. In: AAMAS 2008: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 943–950 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bachrach, Y., Rosenschein, J.S.: Computing the Banzhaf power index in network flow games. In: AAMAS 2007: Proceedings of the 6th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 1–7. ACM Press, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bachrach, Y., Rosenschein, J.S., Porat, E.: Power and stability in connectivity games. In: AAMAS 2008: Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems, pp. 999–1006 (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bailey, R.A.: Surveys in Combinatorics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ball, M.O.: Computational complexity of network reliability analysis: An overview. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 35(3), 230–239 (1986)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borm, P., Hamers, H., Hendrickx, R.: Operations research games: A survey. TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research 9(2), 139–199 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brandes, U., Erlebach, T.: Network Analysis: Methodological Foundations. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Crama, Y., Leruth, L.: Control and voting power in corporate networks: Concepts and computational aspects. European Journal of Operational Research 178(3), 879–893 (2007)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Curiel, I.: Cooperative Game Theory and Applications: Cooperative Games Arising from Combinatorial Optimization Problems. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deegan, J., Packel, E.: A new index of power for simple n-person games. International Journal of Game Theory 7(2), 113–123 (1978)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dubey, P., Shapley, L.S.: Mathematical properties of the Banzhaf power index. Mathematics of Operations Research 4(2), 99–131 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faliszewski, P., Hemaspaandra, L.A.: The complexity of power-index comparison. In: Fleischer, R., Xu, J. (eds.) AAIM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5034, pp. 177–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Godsil, C., Royle, G.: Algebraic Graph Theory. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Granot, D., Maschler, M.: Spanning network games. International Journal of Game Theory 27(4), 467–500 (1998)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holler, M.: Forming coalitions and measuring voting power. Political Studies 30(2), 262–271 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Korte, B., Vygen, J.: Combinatorial Optimization: Theory and Algorithms, 3rd edn. Springer, Germany (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Valiant, L.G.: The complexity of enumeration and reliability problems. SIAM Journal on Computing 8(3), 410–421 (1979)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van den Nouweland, A., Tijs, S., Maschler, M.: Monotonic games are spanning network games. International Journal of Game Theory 21(4), 419–427 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haris Aziz
    • 1
  • Oded Lachish
    • 1
  • Mike Paterson
    • 1
  • Rahul Savani
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations