arXiv++ Combinatorics

A number of citation indices have been proposed for measuring and ranking the research publication records of scholars. Some of the best known indices, such as those proposed by Hirsch and Woeginger, are designed to reward most highly those records that strike some balance between productivity (number of papers published), and impact (frequency with which those papers are cited). A large number of rarely cited publications will not score well, nor will a very small number of heavily cited papers. We discuss three new citation indices, one of which was independently proposed in \cite{FHLB}. Each rests on the notion of scale invariance, fundamental to John Nash's solution of the two-person bargaining problem. Our main focus is on one of these -- a scale invariant version of the Hirsch index. We argue that it has advantages over the original; it produces fairer rankings within subdisciplines, is more decisive (discriminates more finely, yielding fewer ties) and more dynamic (growing over time via more frequent, smaller increments), and exhibits enhanced centrality and tail balancedness. Simulations suggest that scale invariance improves robustness under Poisson noise, with increased decisiveness having no cost in terms of the number of ``accidental" reversals, wherein random irregularities cause researcher A to receive a lower index value than B, although A's productivity and impact are both slightly higher than B's. Moreover, we provide an axiomatic characterization of the scale invariant Hirsch index, via axioms that bear a close relationship, in discrete analogue, to those used by Nash in \cite{Nas50}. This argues for the mathematical naturality of the new index. An earlier version was presented at the 5th World Congress of the Game Theory Society, Maastricht, Netherlands in 2016.

The Nakamura number is an appropriate invariant of a simple game to study the existence of social equilibria and the possibility of cycles. For symmetric quota games its number can be obtained by an easy formula. For some subclasses of simple games the corresponding Nakamura number has also been characterized. However, in general, not much is known about lower and upper bounds depending of invariants on simple, complete or weighted games. Here, we survey such results and highlight connections with other game theoretic concepts.

Some distinguished types of voters, as vetoers, passers or nulls, as well as some others, play a significant role in voting systems because they are either the most powerful or the least powerful voters in the game independently of the measure used to evaluate power. In this paper we are concerned with the design of voting systems with at least one type of these extreme voters and with few types of equivalent voters, with this purpose in mind we enumerate these special classes of games and find out that its number always follows a Fibonacci sequence with smooth polynomial variations. As a consequence we find several families of games with the same asymptotic exponential behavior excepting of a multiplicative factor which is the golden number or its square. From a more general point of view, our studies are related with the design of voting structures with a predetermined importance ranking.

This paper is a twofold contribution. First, it contributes to the problem of enumerating some classes of simple games and in particular provides the number of weighted games with minimum and the number of weighted games for the dual class as well. Second, we focus on the special case of bipartite complete games with minimum, and we compare and rank these games according to the behavior of some efficient power indices of players of type 1 (or of type 2). The main result of this second part establishes all allowable rankings of these games when the Shapley-Shubik power index is used on players of type 1.

Gvozdeva, Hemaspaandra, and Slinko (2011) have introduced three hierarchies for simple games in order to measure the distance of a given simple game to the class of (roughly) weighted voting games. Their third class $\mathcal{C}_α$ consists of all simple games permitting a weighted representation such that each winning coalition has a weight of at least 1 and each losing coalition a weight of at most $α$. For a given game the minimal possible value of $α$ is called its critical threshold value. We continue the work on the critical threshold value, initiated by Gvozdeva et al., and contribute some new results on the possible values for a given number of voters as well as some general bounds for restricted subclasses of games. A strong relation beween this concept and the cost of stability, i.e. the minimum amount of external payment to ensure stability in a coalitional game, is uncovered.

We study minimum integer representations of weighted games, i.e., representations where the weights are integers and every other integer representation is at least as large in each component. Those minimum integer representations, if the exist at all, are linked with some solution concepts in game theory. Closing existing gaps in the literature, we prove that each weighted game with two types of voters admits a (unique) minimum integer representation, and give new examples for more than two types of voters without a minimum integer representation. We characterize the possible weights in minimum integer representations and give examples for $t\ge 4$ types of voters without a minimum integer representation preserving types, i.e., where we additionally require that the weights are equal within equivalence classes of voters.

We investigate binary voting systems with two types of voters and a hierarchy among the members in each type, so that members in one class have more influence or importance than members in the other class. The purpose of this paper is to count, up to isomorphism, the number of these voting systems for an arbitrary number of voters. We obtain a closed formula for the number of these systems, this formula follows a Fibonacci sequence with a smooth polynomial variation on the number of voters.