183 research outputs found
Experiments to investigate particulate materials in reduced gravity fields
Study investigates agglomeration and macroscopic behavior in reduced gravity fields of particles of known properties by measuring and correlating thermal and acoustical properties of particulate materials. Experiment evaluations provide a basis for a particle behavior theory and measure bulk properties of particulate materials in reduced gravity
Voting power measurement: a story of misreinvention
In this account of the history of voting-power measurement, we confine ourselves to the concept of a priori voting power. We show how the concept was re-invented several times and how the circumstances in which it was reinvented led to conceptual confusion as to the true meaning of what is being measured. In particular, power-as-influence was conflated with value in the sense of transferable utility cooperative game theory (power as share in constant total payoff). Influence was treated, improperly, as though it were transferable utility, and hence an additive and distributive quantity. We provide examples of the resulting misunderstanding and mis-directed criticism
False-Name Manipulation in Weighted Voting Games is Hard for Probabilistic Polynomial Time
False-name manipulation refers to the question of whether a player in a
weighted voting game can increase her power by splitting into several players
and distributing her weight among these false identities. Analogously to this
splitting problem, the beneficial merging problem asks whether a coalition of
players can increase their power in a weighted voting game by merging their
weights. Aziz et al. [ABEP11] analyze the problem of whether merging or
splitting players in weighted voting games is beneficial in terms of the
Shapley-Shubik and the normalized Banzhaf index, and so do Rey and Rothe [RR10]
for the probabilistic Banzhaf index. All these results provide merely
NP-hardness lower bounds for these problems, leaving the question about their
exact complexity open. For the Shapley--Shubik and the probabilistic Banzhaf
index, we raise these lower bounds to hardness for PP, "probabilistic
polynomial time", and provide matching upper bounds for beneficial merging and,
whenever the number of false identities is fixed, also for beneficial
splitting, thus resolving previous conjectures in the affirmative. It follows
from our results that beneficial merging and splitting for these two power
indices cannot be solved in NP, unless the polynomial hierarchy collapses,
which is considered highly unlikely
Am empirical comparison of the performance of classical power indices
Power indices are general measures of the relative voting power of individual members of a voting body. They are useful in helping understand and design voting bodies particularly those which employ weighted voting, in which different members having different numbers of votes. It is well known that in such bodies a member's voting power, in the sense of their capacity to affect the outcomes of votes called, rarely corresponds to the actual number of votes allocated to him. Many voting bodies for which this is an important consideration exist: examples include international organisations (notably the World Bank, the IMF, the European Union), the US presidential Electoral College and corporations in which votes are proportionate to stockholdings.
Two classical power indices dominate the literature: the Shapley-Shubik index and the Banzhaf index (also known by other names). Both are based on the idea that a member's power depends on the relative number of times they can change a coalition from losing to winning by joining it and adding their vote. They may be defined in probabilistic terms as the probability of being able to swing the result of a vote, where all possible outcomes are taken as equiprobable. The indices differ however in the way they count voting coalitions. In probabilistic terms they use different coalition models and therefore differ in precisely what is meant by equiprobable outcomes.
The indices have been used in a number of empirical applications but their relative performance has remained an open question for many years, a factor, which has hindered the wider acceptance of the approach.
Where both the indices have been used for the same case, they have often given different results, sometimes substantially so, and theoretical studies of their properties have not been conclusive. There is therefore a need for comparative testing of their relative performance in practical contexts. Very little work of this type has been done however for a number of reasons: lack of independent indicators of power in actual voting bodies with which to compare them, difficulties in obtaining consistent data on a voting body over time with sufficient variation in the disposition of votes among members of actual legislatures and the lack of independent criteria against which the results of the indices may be judged. It has also been hampered to some extent by lack of easily available algorithms for computing the indices in large games.
This paper assesses the indices against a set of reasonable criteria in terms of shareholder voting power and the control of the corporation in a large cross section of British companies. Each company is a separate voting body and there is much variation in the distribution of voting shares among them. Moreover reasonable criteria exist against which to judge the indices. New algorithms for the Shapley-Shubik and Banzhaf indices are applied to detailed data on beneficial ownership of 444 large UK companies without majority control. Because some of the data is missing, both finite and oceanic games of shareholder voting are studied to overcome this problem.
The results, judged against these criteria, are unfavorable to the Shapley-Shubik index and suggest that the Banzhaf index much better reflects the variations in the power of shareholders between companies as the weights of shareholder blocks vary
Voting Power in the EU Council of Ministers and Fair Decision Making in Distributive Politics
Equitable representation in councils: theory and an application to the United Nations Security Council
We analyze democratic equity in council voting games (CVGs). In a CVG, a
voting body containing all members delegates decision-making to a (time-varying) subset
of its members, as describes, e.g., the relationship between the United Nations General
Assembly and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). We develop a theoretical
framework for analyzing democratic equitability in CVGs at both the country and region
levels, and for different assumptions regarding preference correlation. We apply the
framework to evaluate the equitability of the UNSC, and the claims of those who seek to
reform it. We find that the individual permanent members are overrepresented by between
21.3 times (United Kingdom) and 3.8 times (China) from a country-level perspective,
while from a region perspective Eastern Europe is the most heavily overrepresented region
with more than twice its equitable representation, and Africa the most heavily underrepresented.
Our equity measures do not preclude some UNSC members from exercising veto
rights, however
Correlation and Inequality in Weighted Majority Voting Games
In a weighted majority voting game, the weights of the players are determined based on some socio-economic parameter. A number of measures have been proposed to measure the voting powers of the different players. A basic question in this area is to what extent does the variation in the voting powers reflect the variation in the weights? The voting powers depend on the winning threshold. So, a second question is what is the appropriate value of the winning threshold? In this work, we propose two simple ideas to address these and related questions in a quantifiable manner. The first idea is to use Pearson's Correlation Coefficient between the weight vector and the power profile to measure the similarity between weight and power. The second idea is to use standard inequality measures to quantify the inequality in the weight vector as well as in the power profile. These two ideas answer the first question. Both the weight-power similarity and inequality scores of voting power profiles depend on the value of the winning threshold. For situations of practical interest, it turns out that it is possible to choose a value of the winning threshold which maximises the similarity score and also minimises the difference in the inequality scores of the weight vector and the power profile. This provides an answer to the second question. Using the above formalisation, we are able to quantitatively argue that it is sufficient to consider only the vector of swings for the players as the power measure. We apply our methodology to the voting games arising in the decision making processes of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Union (EU). In the case of IMF, we provide quantitative evidence that the actual winning threshold that is currently used is sub-optimal and instead propose a winning threshold which has a firm analytical backing. On the other hand, in the case of EU, we provide quantitative evidence that the presently used threshold is very close to the optimal
The portfolio allocation paradox: An investigation into the nature of a very strong but puzzling relationship
- âŚ