arXiv subjects

Edith Elkind

Publications and source records attributed to Edith Elkind.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

arXiv2015

Simple Causes of Complexity in Hedonic Games

Hedonic games provide a natural model of coalition formation among self-interested agents. The associated problem of finding stable outcomes in such games has been extensively studied. In this paper, we identify simple conditions on expressivity of hedonic games that are sufficient for the problem of checking whether a given game admits a stable outcome to be computationally hard. Somewhat surprisingly, these conditions are very mild and intuitive. Our results apply to a wide range of stability concepts (core stability, individual stability, Nash stability, etc.) and to many known formalisms for hedonic games (additively separable games, games with W-preferences, fractional hedonic games, etc.), and unify and extend known results for these formalisms. They also have broader applicability: for several classes of hedonic games whose computational complexity has not been explored in prior work, we show that our framework immediately implies a number of hardness results for them.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2015

Properties of Multiwinner Voting Rules

The goal of this paper is to propose and study properties of multiwinner voting rules which can be consider as generalisations of single-winner scoring voting rules. We consider SNTV, Bloc, k-Borda, STV, and several variants of Chamberlin--Courant's and Monroe's rules and their approximations. We identify two broad natural classes of multiwinner score-based rules, and show that many of the existing rules can be captured by one or both of these approaches. We then formulate a number of desirable properties of multiwinner rules, and evaluate the rules we consider with respect to these properties.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2015

Campaign Management under Approval-Driven Voting Rules

Approval-like voting rules, such as Sincere-Strategy Preference-Based Approval voting (SP-AV), the Bucklin rule (an adaptive variant of $k$-Approval voting), and the Fallback rule (an adaptive variant of SP-AV) have many desirable properties: for example, they are easy to understand and encourage the candidates to choose electoral platforms that have a broad appeal. In this paper, we investigate both classic and parameterized computational complexity of electoral campaign management under such rules. We focus on two methods that can be used to promote a given candidate: asking voters to move this candidate upwards in their preference order or asking them to change the number of candidates they approve of. We show that finding an optimal campaign management strategy of the first type is easy for both Bucklin and Fallback. In contrast, the second method is computationally hard even if the degree to which we need to affect the votes is small. Nevertheless, we identify a large class of scenarios that admit fixed-parameter tractable algorithms.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

Equilibria of Plurality Voting: Lazy and Truth-biased Voters

We present a systematic study of Plurality elections with strategic voters who, in addition to having preferences over election winners, have secondary preferences, which govern their behavior when their vote cannot affect the election outcome. Specifically, we study two models that have been recently considered in the literature: lazy voters, who prefer to abstain when they are not pivotal, and truth-biased voters, who prefer to vote truthfully when they are not pivotal. We extend prior work by investigating the behavior of both lazy and truth-biased voters under different tie-breaking rules (lexicographic rule, random voter rule, random candidate rule). Two of these six combinations of secondary preferences and a tie-breaking rule have been studied in prior work. In order to understand the impact of different secondary preferences and tie-breaking rules on the election outcomes, we study the remaining four combinations. We characterize pure Nash equilibria (PNE) of the resulting strategic games and study the complexity of related computational problems. Our results extend to settings where some of the voters may be non-strategic.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

Cooperative Games with Overlapping Coalitions: Charting the Tractability Frontier

In many multiagent scenarios, agents distribute resources, such as time or energy, among several tasks. Having completed their tasks and generated profits, task payoffs must be divided among the agents in some reasonable manner. Cooperative games with overlapping coalitions (OCF games) are a recent framework proposed by Chalkiadakis et al. (2010), generalizing classic cooperative games to the case where agents may belong to more than one coalition. Having formed overlapping coalitions and divided profits, some agents may feel dissatisfied with their share of the profits, and would like to deviate from the given outcome. However, deviation in OCF games is a complicated matter: agents may decide to withdraw only some of their weight from some of the coalitions they belong to; that is, even after deviation, it is possible that agents will still be involved in tasks with non-deviators. This means that the desirability of a deviation, and the stability of formed coalitions, is to a great extent determined by the reaction of non-deviators. In this work, we explore algorithmic aspects of OCF games, focusing on the core in OCF games. We study the problem of deciding if the core of an OCF game is not empty, and whether a core payoff division can be found in polynomial time; moreover, we identify conditions that ensure that the problem admits polynomial time algorithms. Finally, we introduce and study a natural class of OCF games, Linear Bottleneck Games. Interestingly, we show that such games always have a non-empty core, even assuming a highly lenient reaction to deviations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

Group Activity Selection Problem

We consider a setting where one has to organize one or several group activities for a set of agents. Each agent will participate in at most one activity, and her preferences over activities depend on the number of participants in the activity. The goal is to assign agents to activities based on their preferences. We put forward a general model for this setting, which is a natural generalization of anonymous hedonic games. We then focus on a special case of our model, where agents' preferences are binary, i.e., each agent classifies all pairs of the form "(activity, group size)" into ones that are acceptable and ones that are not. We formulate several solution concepts for this scenario, and study them from the computational point of view, providing hardness results for the general case as well as efficient algorithms for settings where agents' preferences satisfy certain natural constraints.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

Cloning in Elections: Finding the Possible Winners

We consider the problem of manipulating elections by cloning candidates. In our model, a manipulator can replace each candidate c by several clones, i.e., new candidates that are so similar to c that each voter simply replaces c in his vote with a block of these new candidates, ranked consecutively. The outcome of the resulting election may then depend on the number of clones as well as on how each voter orders the clones within the block. We formalize what it means for a cloning manipulation to be successful (which turns out to be a surprisingly delicate issue), and, for a number of common voting rules, characterize the preference profiles for which a successful cloning manipulation exists. We also consider the model where there is a cost associated with producing each clone, and study the complexity of finding a minimum-cost cloning manipulation. Finally, we compare cloning with two related problems: the problem of control by adding candidates and the problem of possible (co)winners when new alternatives can join.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

Cooperative Games with Overlapping Coalitions

In the usual models of cooperative game theory, the outcome of a coalition formation process is either the grand coalition or a coalition structure that consists of disjoint coalitions. However, in many domains where coalitions are associated with tasks, an agent may be involved in executing more than one task, and thus may distribute his resources among several coalitions. To tackle such scenarios, we introduce a model for cooperative games with overlapping coalitions--or overlapping coalition formation (OCF) games. We then explore the issue of stability in this setting. In particular, we introduce a notion of the core, which generalizes the corresponding notion in the traditional (non-overlapping) scenario. Then, under some quite general conditions, we characterize the elements of the core, and show that any element of the core maximizes the social welfare. We also introduce a concept of balancedness for overlapping coalitional games, and use it to characterize coalition structures that can be extended to elements of the core. Finally, we generalize the notion of convexity to our setting, and show that under some natural assumptions convex games have a non-empty core. Moreover, we introduce two alternative notions of stability in OCF that allow a wider range of deviations, and explore the relationships among the corresponding definitions of the core, as well as the classic (non-overlapping) core and the Aubin core. We illustrate the general properties of the three cores, and also study them from a computational perspective, thus obtaining additional insights into their fundamental structure.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2014

False-Name Manipulations in Weighted Voting Games

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 players 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.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2013

The Complexity of Fully Proportional Representation for Single-Crossing Electorates

We study the complexity of winner determination in single-crossing elections under two classic fully proportional representation rules---Chamberlin--Courant's rule and Monroe's rule. Winner determination for these rules is known to be NP-hard for unrestricted preferences. We show that for single-crossing preferences this problem admits a polynomial-time algorithm for Chamberlin--Courant's rule, but remains NP-hard for Monroe's rule. Our algorithm for Chamberlin--Courant's rule can be modified to work for elections with bounded single-crossing width. To circumvent the hardness result for Monroe's rule, we consider single-crossing elections that satisfy an additional constraint, namely, ones where each candidate is ranked first by at least one voter (such elections are called narcissistic). For single-crossing narcissistic elections, we provide an efficient algorithm for the egalitarian version of Monroe's rule.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2011

Clone Structures in Voters' Preferences

In elections, a set of candidates ranked consecutively (though possibly in different order) by all voters is called a clone set, and its members are called clones. A clone structure is a family of all clone sets of a given election. In this paper we study properties of clone structures. In particular, we give an axiomatic characterization of clone structures, show their hierarchical structure, and analyze clone structures in single-peaked and single-crossing elections. We give a polynomial-time algorithm that finds a minimal collection of clones that need to be collapsed for an election to become single-peaked, and we show that this problem is NP-hard for single-crossing elections.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2011

Dynamics of Profit-Sharing Games

An important task in the analysis of multiagent systems is to understand how groups of selfish players can form coalitions, i.e., work together in teams. In this paper, we study the dynamics of coalition formation under bounded rationality. We consider settings where each team's profit is given by a convex function, and propose three profit-sharing schemes, each of which is based on the concept of marginal utility. The agents are assumed to be myopic, i.e., they keep changing teams as long as they can increase their payoff by doing so. We study the properties (such as closeness to Nash equilibrium or total profit) of the states that result after a polynomial number of such moves, and prove bounds on the price of anarchy and the price of stability of the corresponding games.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2010

Approximation Algorithms for Campaign Management

We study electoral campaign management scenarios in which an external party can buy votes, i.e., pay the voters to promote its preferred candidate in their preference rankings. The external party's goal is to make its preferred candidate a winner while paying as little as possible. We describe a 2-approximation algorithm for this problem for a large class of electoral systems known as scoring rules. Our result holds even for weighted voters, and has applications for campaign management in commercial settings. We also give approximation algorithms for our problem for two Condorcet-consistent rules, namely, the Copeland rule and maximin.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2010

Rationalizations of Condorcet-Consistent Rules via Distances of Hamming Type

The main idea of the {\em distance rationalizability} approach to view the voters' preferences as an imperfect approximation to some kind of consensus is deeply rooted in social choice literature. It allows one to define ("rationalize") voting rules via a consensus class of elections and a distance: a candidate is said to be an election winner if she is ranked first in one of the nearest (with respect to the given distance) consensus elections. It is known that many classic voting rules can be distance rationalized. In this paper, we provide new results on distance rationalizability of several Condorcet-consistent voting rules. In particular, we distance rationalize Young's rule and Maximin rule using distances similar to the Hamming distance. We show that the claim that Young's rule can be rationalized by the Condorcet consensus class and the Hamming distance is incorrect; in fact, these consensus class and distance yield a new rule which has not been studied before. We prove that, similarly to Young's rule, this new rule has a computationally hard winner determination problem.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2010

Frugal Mechanism Design via Spectral Techniques

We study the design of truthful mechanisms for set systems, i.e., scenarios where a customer needs to hire a team of agents to perform a complex task. In this setting, frugality [Archer&Tardos'02] provides a measure to evaluate the "cost of truthfulness", that is, the overpayment of a truthful mechanism relative to the "fair" payment. We propose a uniform scheme for designing frugal truthful mechanisms for general set systems. Our scheme is based on scaling the agents' bids using the eigenvector of a matrix that encodes the interdependencies between the agents. We demonstrate that the r-out-of-k-system mechanism and the \sqrt-mechanism for buying a path in a graph [Karlin et. al'05] can be viewed as instantiations of our scheme. We then apply our scheme to two other classes of set systems, namely, vertex cover systems and k-path systems, in which a customer needs to purchase k edge-disjoint source-sink paths. For both settings, we bound the frugality of our mechanism in terms of the largest eigenvalue of the respective interdependency matrix. We show that our mechanism is optimal for a large subclass of vertex cover systems satisfying a simple local sparsity condition. For k-path systems, while our mechanism is within a factor of k + 1 from optimal, we show that it is, in fact, optimal, when one uses a modified definition of frugality proposed in [Elkind et al.'07]. Our lower bound argument combines spectral techniques and Young's inequality, and is applicable to all set systems. As both r-out-of-k systems and single path systems can be viewed as special cases of k-path systems, our result improves the lower bounds of [Karlin et al.'05] and answers several open questions proposed in that paper.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2010

Equilibria of Plurality Voting with Abstentions

In the traditional voting manipulation literature, it is assumed that a group of manipulators jointly misrepresent their preferences to get a certain candidate elected, while the remaining voters are truthful. In this paper, we depart from this assumption, and consider the setting where all voters are strategic. In this case, the election can be viewed as a game, and the election outcomes correspond to Nash equilibria of this game. We use this framework to analyze two variants of Plurality voting, namely, simultaneous voting, where all voters submit their ballots at the same time, and sequential voting, where the voters express their preferences one by one. For simultaneous voting, we characterize the preference profiles that admit a pure Nash equilibrium, but show that it is computationally hard to check if a given profile fits our criterion. For sequential voting, we provide a complete analysis of the setting with two candidates, and show that for three or more candidates the equilibria of sequential voting may behave in a counterintuitive manner.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2009

The Cost of Stability in Coalitional Games

A key question in cooperative game theory is that of coalitional stability, usually captured by the notion of the \emph{core}--the set of outcomes such that no subgroup of players has an incentive to deviate. However, some coalitional games have empty cores, and any outcome in such a game is unstable. In this paper, we investigate the possibility of stabilizing a coalitional game by using external payments. We consider a scenario where an external party, which is interested in having the players work together, offers a supplemental payment to the grand coalition (or, more generally, a particular coalition structure). This payment is conditional on players not deviating from their coalition(s). The sum of this payment plus the actual gains of the coalition(s) may then be divided among the agents so as to promote stability. We define the \emph{cost of stability (CoS)} as the minimal external payment that stabilizes the game. We provide general bounds on the cost of stability in several classes of games, and explore its algorithmic properties. To develop a better intuition for the concepts we introduce, we provide a detailed algorithmic study of the cost of stability in weighted voting games, a simple but expressive class of games which can model decision-making in political bodies, and cooperation in multiagent settings. Finally, we extend our model and results to games with coalition structures.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2008

Computing the nucleolus of weighted voting games

Weighted voting games (WVG) are coalitional games in which an agent's contribution to a coalition is given by his it weight, and a coalition wins if its total weight meets or exceeds a given quota. These games model decision-making in political bodies as well as collaboration and surplus division in multiagent domains. The computational complexity of various solution concepts for weighted voting games received a lot of attention in recent years. In particular, Elkind et al.(2007) studied the complexity of stability-related solution concepts in WVGs, namely, of the core, the least core, and the nucleolus. While they have completely characterized the algorithmic complexity of the core and the least core, for the nucleolus they have only provided an NP-hardness result. In this paper, we solve an open problem posed by Elkind et al. by showing that the nucleolus of WVGs, and, more generally, k-vector weighted voting games with fixed k, can be computed in pseudopolynomial time, i.e., there exists an algorithm that correctly computes the nucleolus and runs in time polynomial in the number of players and the maximum weight. In doing so, we propose a general framework for computing the nucleolus, which may be applicable to a wider of class of games.

cs.GT↗