Group Activity Selection on Graphs: Parameterized Analysis

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10504)


In varied real-life situations, ranging from carpooling to workload delegation, several activities are to be performed, to which end each activity should be assigned to a group of agents. These situations are captured by the Group Activity Selection Problem (GASP). Notably, relevant relations among agents, such as acquaintanceship or physical distance, can often be modeled naturally using graphs. To exploit this modeling ability, Igarashi, Peters and Elkind [AAAI 17] introduced gGASP. Specifically, it is required that each group would correspond to a connected set of the underlying graph. In addition, to enforce the execution of the activities in practice, no individual should desire to desert its group in favor of joining another group. In other words, the assignment should be Nash stable. In this paper, we study gGASP with Nash stability (gNSGA), whose objective is to compute such an assignment. This problem is computationally hard even on such restricted topologies as paths and stars, which naturally led Igarashi, Bredereck, Peters and Elkind [AAAI 17, AAMAS 17] to the study gNSGA in the framework of parameterized complexity. We take this line of investigation forward, significantly advancing the state-of-the-art. First, we show that gNSGA is NP-hard even when merely one activity is present. In fact, this special case remains NP-hard when we further restrict the graph to have maximum degree \(\varDelta =5\). Consequently, gNSGA is not fixed-parameter tractable (FPT), or even XP, when parameterized by \(p+\varDelta \), where p is the number of activities. However, we are able to design a parameterized algorithm for gNSGA on general graphs with respect to \(p+\varDelta +t\), where t is the maximum size of a group. Finally, we develop an algorithm that solves gNSGA on graphs of bounded treewidth \(\mathbf {tw}\) in time \(4^p\cdot (n\,+\,p)^{\mathcal {O}(\mathbf {tw})}\). Here, \(\varDelta +t\) can be arbitrarily large. Along the way, we resolve several open questions regarding gNSGA.


  1. 1.
    Aziz, H., Savani, R., Moulin, H.: Hedonic Games. In: Handbook of Computational Social Choice, pp. 356–376. Cambridge University Press (2016). Chap. 15Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chalkiadakis, G., Greco, G., Markakis, E.: Characteristic function games with restricted agent interactions: core-stability and coalition structures. Artif. Intell. 232, 76–113 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cygan, M., Fomin, F.V., Kowalik, L., Lokshtanov, D., Marx, D., Pilipczuk, M., Pilipczuk, M., Saurabh, S.: Parameterized Algorithms. Springer, Cham (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Darmann, A., Elkind, E., Kurz, S., Lang, J., Schauer, J., Woeginger, G.: Group activity selection problem. In: Goldberg, P.W. (ed.) WINE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7695, pp. 156–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35311-6_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diestel, R.: Graph Theory. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elkind, E.: Coalitional games on sparse social networks. In: Liu, T.-Y., Qi, Q., Ye, Y. (eds.) WINE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8877, pp. 308–321. Springer, Cham (2014). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-13129-0_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fomin, F.V., Lokshtanov, D., Panolan, F., Saurabh, S.: Efficient computation of representative families with applications in parameterized and exact algorithms. J. ACM 63(4), 29:1–29:60 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gairing, M., Savani, R.: Computing stable outcomes in hedonic games. In: Kontogiannis, S., Koutsoupias, E., Spirakis, P.G. (eds.) SAGT 2010. LNCS, vol. 6386, pp. 174–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-16170-4_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gairing, M., Savani, R.: Computing stable outcomes in hedonic games with voting-based deviations. In: AAMAS 2011, pp. 559–566 (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: The rectilinear steiner tree problem is NP-complete. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 32, 826–834 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W.H. Freeman, New York (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Igarashi, A., Bredereck, R., Elkind, E.: On parameterized complexity of group activity selection problems on social networks. In: AAMAS 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Igarashi, A., Elkind, E.: Hedonic games with graph-restricted communication. In: AAMAS 2016, pp. 242–250 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Igarashi, A., Elkind, E., Peters, D.: Group activity selection on social network. In: AAAI 2017, pp. 565–571 (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manlove, D.F.: Algorithmics of Matching Under Preferences, vol. 2. WorldScientific, Singapore (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Myerson, R.B.: Graphs and cooperation games. Math. Oper. Res. 2, 225–229 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, HBNIChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations