In many real-world situations, data is distributed across multiple self-interested agents. These agents can collaborate to build a machine learning model based on data from multiple agents, potentially reducing the error each experiences. However, sharing models in this way raises questions of fairness: to what extent can the error experienced by one agent be significantly lower than the error experienced by another agent in the same coalition? In this work, we consider two notions of fairness that each may be appropriate in different circumstances: "egalitarian fairness" (which aims to bound how dissimilar error rates can be) and "proportional fairness" (which aims to reward players for contributing more data). We similarly consider two common methods of model aggregation, one where a single model is created for all agents (uniform), and one where an individualized model is created for each agent. For egalitarian fairness, we obtain a tight multiplicative bound on how widely error rates can diverge between agents collaborating (which holds for both aggregation methods). For proportional fairness, we show that the individualized aggregation method always gives a small player error that is upper bounded by proportionality. For uniform aggregation, we show that this upper bound is guaranteed for any individually rational coalition (where no player wishes to leave to do local learning).

Weighted voting games apply to a wide variety of multi-agent settings. They enable the formalization of power indices which quantify the coalitional power of players. We take a novel approach to the study of the power of big vs. small players in these games. We model small (big) players as having single (multiple) votes. The aggregate relative power of big players is measured w.r.t. their votes proportion. For this ratio, we show small constant worst-case bounds for the Shapley-Shubik and the Deegan-Packel indices. In sharp contrast, this ratio is unbounded for the Banzhaf index. As an application, we define a false-name strategic normal form game where each big player may split its votes between false identities, and study its various properties. Together, our results provide foundations for the implications of players’ size, modeled as their ability to split, on their relative power.

Federated learning is a setting where agents, each with access to their own data source, combine models learned from local data to create a global model. If agents are drawing their data from different distributions, though, federated learning might produce a biased global model that is not optimal for each agent. This means that agents face a fundamental question: should they join the global model or stay with their local model? In this work, we show how this situation can be naturally analyzed through the framework of coalitional game theory. Motivated by these considerations, we propose the following game: there are heterogeneous players with different model parameters governing their data distribution and different amounts of data they have noisily drawn from their own distribution. Each player's goal is to obtain a model with minimal expected mean squared error (MSE) on their own distribution. They have a choice of fitting a model based solely on their own data, or combining their learned parameters with those of some subset of the other players. Combining models reduces the variance component of their error through access to more data, but increases the bias because of the heterogeneity of distributions. In this work, we derive exact expected MSE values for problems in linear regression and mean estimation. We use these values to analyze the resulting game in the framework of hedonic game theory; we study how players might divide into coalitions, where each set of players within a coalition jointly constructs a single model. In a case with arbitrarily many players that each have either a "small" or "large" amount of data, we constructively show that there always exists a stable partition of players into coalitions.