Abstract: We consider approval voting elections in which each voter votes for a (possibly empty) set of candidates and the outcome consists of a set of k candidates for some parameter k, e.g., committee elections. We are interested in the minimax approval voting rule in which the outcome represents a compromise among the voters, in the sense that the maximum distance between the preference of any voter and the outcome is as small as possible. This voting rule has two main drawbacks. First, computing an outcome that minimizes the maximum distance is computationally hard. Furthermore, any algorithm that always returns such an outcome provides
incentives to voters to misreport their true preferences.
In order to circumvent these drawbacks, we consider approximation algorithms, i.e., algorithms that produce an outcome that approximates the minimax distance for any given instance. Such algorithms can be considered as alternative voting rules. We present a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm that uses a natural linear programming relaxation for the underlying optimization problem and deterministically
rounds the fractional solution in order to compute the outcome; this result improves upon the previously best known algorithm that has an approximation ratio of 3. We are furthermore interested in approximation algorithms that are resistant to manipulation by (coalitions of) voters, i.e., algorithms that do not motivate voters to misreport their true preferences in order to improve their distance from the outcome. We complement previous results in the literature with new upper and lower bounds on strategyproof and group-strategyproof algorithms.

Abstract: We consider algorithmic questions concerning the existence,
tractability and quality of atomic congestion games, among users that
are considered to participate in (static) selfish coalitions. We carefully
define a coalitional congestion model among atomic players.
Our findings in this model are quite interesting, in the sense that we
demonstrate many similarities with the non–cooperative case. For example,
there exist potentials proving the existence of Pure Nash Equilibria
(PNE) in the (even unrelated) parallel links setting; the Finite Improvement
Property collapses as soon as we depart from linear delays, but
there is an exact potential (and thus PNE) for the case of linear delays,
in the network setting; the Price of Anarchy on identical parallel
links demonstrates a quite surprising threshold behavior: it persists on
being asymptotically equal to that in the case of the non–cooperative
KP–model, unless we enforce a sublogarithmic number of coalitions.
We also show crucial differences, mainly concerning the hardness of algorithmic
problems that are solved efficiently in the non–cooperative case.
Although we demonstrate convergence to robust PNE, we also prove the
hardness of computing them. On the other hand, we can easily construct
a generalized fully mixed Nash Equilibrium. Finally, we propose a new
improvement policy that converges to PNE that are robust against (even
dynamically forming) coalitions of small size, in pseudo–polynomial time.
Keywords. Game Theory, Atomic Congestion Games, Coalitions, Convergence
to Equilibria, Price of Anarchy.

Abstract: We consider algorithmic questions concerning the existence, tractability and quality of Nash equi-
libria, in atomic congestion games among users participating in selsh coalitions.
We introduce a coalitional congestion model among atomic players and demonstrate many in-
teresting similarities with the non-cooperative case. For example, there exists a potential function
proving the existence of Pure Nash Equilibria (PNE) in the unrelated parallel links setting; in
the network setting, the Finite Improvement Property collapses as soon as we depart from linear
delays, but there is an exact potential (and thus PNE) for linear delays; the Price of Anarchy on
identical parallel links demonstrates a quite surprising threshold behavior: it persists on being
asymptotically equal to that in the case of the non-cooperative KP-model, unless the number of
coalitions is sublogarithmic.
We also show crucial dierences, mainly concerning the hardness of algorithmic problems that
are solved eciently in the non{cooperative case. Although we demonstrate convergence to robust
PNE, we also prove the hardness of computing them. On the other hand, we propose a generalized
fully mixed Nash Equilibrium, that can be eciently constructed in most cases. Finally, we
propose a natural improvement policy and prove its convergence in pseudo{polynomial time to
PNE which are robust against (even dynamically forming) coalitions of small size.

Abstract: We consider algorithmic questions concerning the existence,
tractability and quality of atomic congestion games, among users that
are considered to participate in (static) selfish coalitions. We carefully
define a coalitional congestion model among atomic players.
Our findings in this model are quite interesting, in the sense that we
demonstrate many similarities with the non–cooperative case. For example,
there exist potentials proving the existence of Pure Nash Equilibria
(PNE) in the (even unrelated) parallel links setting; the Finite Improvement
Property collapses as soon as we depart from linear delays, but
there is an exact potential (and thus PNE) for the case of linear delays,
in the network setting; the Price of Anarchy on identical parallel
links demonstrates a quite surprising threshold behavior: it persists on
being asymptotically equal to that in the case of the non–cooperative
KP–model, unless we enforce a sublogarithmic number of coalitions.
We also show crucial differences, mainly concerning the hardness of algorithmic
problems that are solved efficiently in the non–cooperative case.
Although we demonstrate convergence to robust PNE, we also prove the
hardness of computing them. On the other hand, we can easily construct
a generalized fully mixed Nash Equilibrium. Finally, we propose a new
improvement policy that converges to PNE that are robust against (even
dynamically forming) coalitions of small size, in pseudo–polynomial time.
Keywords. Game Theory, Atomic Congestion Games, Coalitions, Convergence
to Equilibria, Price of Anarchy.

Abstract: We study here the effect of concurrent greedy moves of players in atomic congestion games
where n selfish agents (players) wish to select a resource each (out of m resources) so that her selfish delay there is not much. Such games usually admit a global potential that decreases by sequential and selfishly improving moves. However, concurrent moves may not always lead to global convergence. On the other hand, concurrent play is desirable because it might essentially improve the system convergence time to some balanced state. The problem of ?maintaining? global progress while allowing concurrent play is
exactly what is examined and answered here. We examine two orthogonal settings : (i) A game where the players decide their moves without global information, each acting ?freely? by sampling resources randomly and locally deciding to migrate (if the new resource is better) via a random experiment. Here, the resources can have quite arbitrary latency that is load dependent. (ii) An ?organised? setting where the players are prepartitioned into selfish groups (coalitions) and where each coalition does an improving coalitional move.
Here the concurrency is among the members of the coalition. In this second setting, the resources have latency functions that are only linearly dependent on the load, since this is the only case so far where a global potential exists. In both cases (i), (ii) we show that the system converges to an ?approximate? equilibrium very fast (in logarithmic rounds where the logarithm is taken on the maximum value of the global potential). This is interesting, since two quite orthogonal settings lead to the same result. Our work considers concurrent selfish play for arbitrary latencies for the first time. Also, this is the first time where fast coalitional convergence
to an approximate equilibrium is shown. All our results refer to atomic games (ie players are finite and distinct).

Abstract: We study here the effect of concurrent greedy moves of players in atomic
congestion games where n selfish agents (players) wish to select a resource each (out
of m resources) so that her selfish delay there is not much. The problem of “maintaining”
global progress while allowing concurrent play is exactly what is examined
and answered here. We examine two orthogonal settings: (i) A game where the players
decide their moves without global information, each acting “freely” by sampling
resources randomly and locally deciding to migrate (if the new resource is better)
via a random experiment. Here, the resources can have quite arbitrary latency that is
load dependent. (ii) An “organised” setting where the players are pre-partitioned into
selfish groups (coalitions) and where each coalition does an improving coalitional
move. Our work considers concurrent selfish play for arbitrary latencies for the first
time. Also, this is the first time where fast coalitional convergence to an approximate
equilibrium is shown.

Abstract: We study here the effect of concurrent greedy moves of players in
atomic congestion games where n selﬁsh agents (players) wish to select a re-
source each (out of m resources) so that her selﬁsh delay there is not much. The
problem of maintaining global progress while allowing concurrent play is ex-
actly what is examined and answered here. We examine two orthogonal settings :
(i) A game where the players decide their moves without global information, each
acting freely by sampling resources randomly and locally deciding to migrate
(if the new resource is better) via a random experiment. Here, the resources can
have quite arbitrary latency that is load dependent. (ii) An organised setting
where the players are pre-partitioned into selﬁsh groups (coalitions) and where
each coalition does an improving coalitional move. Our work considers concur-
rent selﬁsh play for arbitrary latencies for the ﬁrst time. Also, this is the ﬁrst time
where fast coalitional convergence to an approximate equilibrium is shown.

Abstract: We consider applications of probabilistic techniques in the
framework of algorithmic game theory. We focus on three distinct case
studies: (i) The exploitation of the probabilistic method to demonstrate
the existence of approximate Nash equilibria of logarithmic support sizes
in bimatrix games; (ii) the analysis of the statistical conflict that mixed
strategies cause in network congestion games; (iii) the effect of coalitions
in the quality of congestion games on parallel links.