Cooperative games provide a framework to study cooperation among self-interested agents. They offer a number of solution concepts describing how the outcome of the cooperation should be shared among the players. Unfortunately, computational problems associated with many of these solution concepts tend to be intractable---NP-hard or worse. In this paper, we incorporate complexity measures recently proposed by Feige and Izsak (2013), called dependency degree and supermodular degree, into the complexity analysis of coopera- tive games. We show that many computational problems for cooperative games become tractable for games whose dependency degree or supermodular degree are bounded. In particular, we prove that simple games admit efficient algorithms for various solution concepts when the supermodular degree is small; further, we show that computing the Shapley value is always in FPT with respect to the dependency degree. Finally, we observe that, while determining the dependency among players is computationally hard, there are efficient algorithms for special classes of games.

Committee scoring rules form an important class of multiwinner voting rules. As computing winning committees under such rules is generally intractable, in this paper we investigate efficient heuristics for this task. We design two novel heuristics for computing approximate results of multiwinner elections under arbitrary committee scoring rules; notably, one of these heuristics uses concepts from cooperative game theory. We then provide an experimental evaluation of our heuristics (and two others, known from the literature): we compare the scores of the committees output by our algorithms to the scores of the optimal committees, and also use the two-dimensional Euclidean domain to compare the visual representations of the outputs of our algorithms.

Voting is almost never done in void, as usually there are some relations between the alternatives on which the voters vote on. These relations shall be taken into consideration when selecting a winning committee of some given multiwinner election. As taking into account all possible relations between the alternatives is generally computationally intractable, in this paper we consider classes of alternatives; intuitively, the number of classes is significantly smaller than the number of alternatives, and thus there is some hope in reaching computational tractability. We model both intraclass relations and interclass relations by functions, which we refer to as synergy functions, and study the computational complexity of identifying the best committee, taking into account those synergy functions. Our model accommodates both positive and negative relations between alternatives; further, our efficient algorithms can also deal with a rich class of diversity wishes, which we show how to model using synergy functions.

We visualize aggregate outputs of popular multiwinner voting rules — SNTV, STV, Bloc, k-Borda, Monroe, Chamberlin–Courant, and PAV — for elections generated according to the two-dimensional Euclidean model. We consider three applications of multiwinner voting, namely, parliamentary elections, portfolio/movie selection, and shortlisting, and use our results to understand which of our rules seem to be best suited for each application. In particular, we show that STV (one of the few nontrivial rules used in real high-stake elections) exhibits excellent performance, whereas the Bloc rule (also often used in practice) performs poorly.

Consider an important meeting to be held in a team-based organization. Taking availability constraints into account, an online scheduling poll is being used in order to decide upon the exact time of the meeting. Decisions are to be taken during the meeting, therefore each team would like to maximize its relative attendance (i.e. the proportional number of its team members attending the meeting). We introduce a corresponding game, where each team can declare a lower total availability in the scheduling poll in order to improve its relative attendance—the pay-off. We are especially interested in situations where teams can form coalitions. We provide an efficient algorithm that, given a coalition, finds an optimal way for each team in a coalition to improve its pay-off. In contrast, we show that deciding whether such a coalition exists is NP-hard. We also study the existence of Nash equilibria: Finding Nash equilibria for various small sizes of teams and coalitions can be done in polynomial time while it is coNP-hard if the coalition size is unbounded.

We introduce a new hierarchy over monotone set functions, that we refer to as MPH (Maximum over Positive Hypergraphs). Levels of the hierarchy correspond to the degree of complementarity in a given function. The highest level of the hierarchy, MPH-m (where m is the total number of items) captures all monotone functions. The lowest level, MPH-1, captures all monotone submodular functions, and more generally, the class of functions known as XOS. Every monotone function that has a positive hypergraph representation of rank k (in the sense defined by Abraham, Babaioff, Dughmi and Roughgarden [EC 2012]) is in MPH-k. Every monotone function that has supermodular degree k (in the sense defined by Feige and Izsak [ITCS 2013]) is in MPH-(k+1). In both cases, the converse direction does not hold, even in an approximate sense. We present additional results that demonstrate the expressiveness power of MPH-k. One can obtain good approximation ratios for some natural optimization problems, provided that functions are required to lie in low levels of the MPH hierarchy. We present two such applications. One shows that the maximum welfare problem can be approximated within a ratio of k+1 if all players hold valuation functions in MPH-k. The other is an upper bound of 2k on the price of anarchy of simultaneous first price auctions.