Skip to main content

Manipulation of Weighted Voting Games via Annexation and Merging

  • Conference paper
Book cover Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2012)

Part of the book series: Communications in Computer and Information Science ((CCIS,volume 358))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

We conduct an experimental study of the effects of manipulations (i.e., dishonest behaviors) including those of manipulation by annexation and merging in weighted voting games. These manipulations involve an agent or agents misrepresenting their identities in anticipation of gaining more power at the expense of other agents in a game. Using the well-known Shapley-Shubik and Banzhaf power indices, we first show that manipulators need to do only a polynomial amount of work to find a much improved power gain, and then present two enumeration-based pseudopolynomial algorithms that manipulators can use. Furthermore, we provide a careful investigation of heuristics for annexation which provide huge savings in computational efforts over the enumeration-based method. The benefits achievable by manipulating agents using these heuristics also compare with those of the enumeration-based method which serves as upper bound.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alonso-Meijide, J.M., Bowles, C.: Generating Functions for Coalitional Power Indices: An Application to the IMF. Annals of Operations Research 137, 21–44 (2005)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Aziz, H., Bachrach, Y., Elkind, E., Paterson, M.: False-name manipulation in Weighted Voting Games. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 40, 57–93 (2011)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Aziz, H., Paterson, M.: False-name Manipulations in Weighted Voting Games: splitting, merging and annexation. In: 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 409–416 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aziz, H., Paterson, M., Leech, D.: Classification of Computationally Tractable Weighted Voting Games. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, London, U.K., vol. I (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bachrach, Y., Markakis, E., Procaccia, A.D., Rosenschein, J.S., Saberi, A.: Approximating Power Indices - Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 20(2), 105–122 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Banzhaf, J.: Weighted Voting Doesn’t Work: A Mathematical Analysis. Rutgers Law Review 19, 317–343 (1965)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bilbao, J.M., Fernandez, J.R., Losada, A.J., Lopez, J.J.: Generating functions for computing power indices efficiently. TOP: An official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research 8(2), 191–213 (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Brams, S.J.: Game Theory and Politics. Free Press, New York (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brams, S.J., Affuso, P.J.: Power and Size: a new paradox. Theory and Decision 7, 29–56 (1976)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Deegan, J., Packel, E.W.: A New Index of Power for Simple n-Person Games. International Journal of Game Theory 7, 113–123 (1978)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fatima, S.S., Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: A Randomized Method for the Shapely Value for the Voting Game. In: AAMAS, Hawaii, pp. 955–962 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Felsenthal, D.S., Machover, M.: The Measurement of Voting Power: Theory and Practice, Problems and Paradoxes. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Felsenthal, D.S., Machover, M.: Annexation and Alliances: When Are Blocs Advantageous a Priori. Social Choice and Welfare 19(2), 295–312 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Ghallab, M., Nau, D., Traverso, P.: Automated Planning - Theory and Practice. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Holler, M.J., Packel, E.W.: Power, Luck and the Right Index. Journal of Economics 43, 21–29 (1983)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnston, R.J.: On the Measurement of Power: Some Reactions to Laver. Environment and Planning 10, 907–914 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Laruelle, A.: On the Choice of a Power Index. Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Economicas 2103, 99–10 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lasisi, R.O., Allan, V.H.: Annexations and Merging in Weighted Voting Games - The Extent of Susceptibility of Power Indices. In: 3rd International Conference of Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART), Rome, Italy, pp. 124–133 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lasisi, R.O., Allan, V.H.: A Search-based Approach to Annexations and Merging in Weighted Voting Games. In: 4th International Conference of Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART), Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal, pp. 44–53 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Leech, D.: Voting Power in the Governance of the International Monetary Fund. Annals of Operations Research 109(1), 375–397 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsui, T., Matsui, Y.: A Survey of Algorithms for Calculating Power Indices of Weighted Majority Games. Journal of the Oper. Res. Society of Japan 43(1) (2000)

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Shapley, L.S., Shubik, M.: A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System. American Political Science Review 48, 787–792 (1954)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shehory, O., Kraus, S.: Methods for Task Allocation via Agent Coalition Formation. Artificial Intelligence 101(1-2), 165–200 (1998)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Yokoo, M., Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., Ohta, N., Iwasaki, A.: Coalitional Games in Open Anonymous Environments. In: AAAI, pp. 509–515 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lasisi, R.O., Allan, V.H. (2013). Manipulation of Weighted Voting Games via Annexation and Merging. In: Filipe, J., Fred, A. (eds) Agents and Artificial Intelligence. ICAART 2012. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 358. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36907-0_24

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-36907-0_24

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-36906-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-36907-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics