Paper detail

Hedonic Games and Treewidth Revisited

We revisit the complexity of the well-studied notion of Additively Separable Hedonic Games (ASHGs). Such games model a basic clustering or coalition formation scenario in which selfish agents are represented by the vertices of an edge-weighted digraph $G=(V,E)$, and the weight of an arc $uv$ denotes the utility $u$ gains by being in the same coalition as $v$. We focus on (arguably) the most basic stability question about such a game: given a graph, does a Nash stable solution exist and can we find it efficiently? We study the (parameterized) complexity of ASHG stability when the underlying graph has treewidth $t$ and maximum degree $Δ$. The current best FPT algorithm for this case was claimed by Peters [AAAI 2016], with time complexity roughly $2^{O(Δ^5t)}$. We present an algorithm with parameter dependence $(Δt)^{O(Δt)}$, significantly improving upon the parameter dependence on $Δ$ given by Peters, albeit with a slightly worse dependence on $t$. Our main result is that this slight performance deterioration with respect to $t$ is actually completely justified: we observe that the previously claimed algorithm is incorrect, and that in fact no algorithm can achieve dependence $t^{o(t)}$ for bounded-degree graphs, unless the ETH fails. This, together with corresponding bounds we provide on the dependence on $Δ$ and the joint parameter establishes that our algorithm is essentially optimal for both parameters, under the ETH. We then revisit the parameterization by treewidth alone and resolve a question also posed by Peters by showing that Nash Stability remains strongly NP-hard on stars under additive preferences. Nevertheless, we also discover an island of mild tractability: we show that Connected Nash Stability is solvable in pseudo-polynomial time for constant $t$, though with an XP dependence on $t$ which, as we establish, cannot be avoided.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.