Coalition Formation

Federated learning (FL) enables privacy-preserving, on-device training across heterogeneous Internet-of-Things (IoT) deployments such as smart-city water-metering networks, where each smart meter observes a household-specific consumption time series. Under such statistical heterogeneity, the standard Federated Averaging (FedAvg) aggregation averages dissimilar local models into a single global model that may fail to capture client-specific patterns. We address this by forming client coalitions directly in the local-weight space and aggregating at the coalition level. Extending a prior weight-driven coalition-formation scheme, we model coalition formation as a Hegselmann-Krause (HK) bounded-confidence opinion-dynamics process acting on the local weights, and develop variants of the HK interaction based on Euclidean-distance and cosine-similarity confidence criteria. The framework is applied to short-term water-consumption forecasting with local Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models and evaluated against FedAvg, Per-FedAvg, FedProx, and FedAvg with Euclidean-distance or cosine-similarity coalition formation. Experiments on a real smart-metering dataset of water consumption show that the proposed HK-based coalition formation produces stable, endogenous coalition structures within at most ten inner iterations, incurs no additional client-side computation or communication compared to FedAvg, and reduces the average MAE by up to 54% relative to FedAvg, 39% relative to FedProx, and 24% relative to Per-FedAvg, while achieving the highest global accuracy (83-85%).

Clustered federated learning benefits from organizing heterogeneous participants into coalitions that train coalition-specific models, but such clustering is sustainable only if participants prefer their assigned coalition and the required transfers are affordable. We develop a transferable-surplus model separating learning benefit, system cost, participant cost, and monetary transfers; an allocation rule converts coalition surplus into hedonic preferences, and weak budget feasibility guarantees nonnegative retained coordinator surplus. For symmetric pairwise allocations the induced game is an exact potential game: a Nash-stable partition exists, every strict better-response process converges, and with destination consent accepted better responses reach an individually stable partition. We characterize feasibility of bounded pair incentives and verify the exponentially many budget constraints in polynomial oracle time when retained slack is submodular. Decomposing welfare into participant potential and retained slack yields additive and multiplicative price-of-stability guarantees, the latter asymptotically tight; exact balance gives welfare-optimal stability only on the pairwise-representable class, and budget feasibility alone permits unbounded welfare loss. Global potential maximization equals weighted maximum-agreement correlation clustering, and approximation followed by stabilization satisfies an end-to-end welfare bound governed by retained slack and negative-edge mass, attained by an explicit construction. In a preregistered five-seed CIFAR-10 study the mechanism reaches the certified estimated-table welfare optimum on every primary instance, equal-surplus sharing has no Nash-stable outcome on three, and pairwise validation gain gives far more reliable pair signs than gradient alignment.

The formation of political coalitions is a complex negotiation driven by both concrete policy objectives and deep-seated ideological convictions. While Large Language Models (LLMs) open new avenues for computational political science, the neutrality and helpfulness biases instilled by Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) prevent them from sustaining steadfast partisan behaviour. We present a multi-agent framework that reconciles factual grounding with ideological alignment by combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): DPO instils aggressive party-specific personas, while a per-party RAG pipeline keeps each agent bounded to its official manifesto. We operationalize the framework on the 2019 Flemish election, deploying the partisan agents in a hub-and-spoke negotiation arbitrated by a formateur. To make the emergent negotiation interpretable, we introduce a Multi-Layered Information Lineage Topology (MILT) that traces every clause in the final agreement back to its manifesto origin and classifies it into five provenance states, a Coalition Influence Score (CIS) that aggregates these traceable contributions to identify which party shaped the agreement, and a real-world grounding pass that benchmarks each simulated provision against the historically adopted coalition agreement. Across three independent simulations the framework yields a stable winner and ranking (N-VA ahead of CD&V and Open Vld), and manifesto-anchored lineage reliably predicts real-world materialization whereas hallucinated content does not. The result is a transparent, scalable testbed for the ex-ante exploration of party compatibility and formateur-mediated compromise.

The Internet taught us that the value of a network depends on how its nodes connect: broadcast stars scale as $V\!\propto\!N$ (Sarnoff), fully-connected meshes as $N^2$ (Metcalfe), and group-forming networks as $2^{N}$ (Reed). We ask the analogous question for networks of AI agents. We model the net value of connection as a function of coordination-group size, derive from it the properties an optimal collaboration protocol must have, and introduce ANet Patu-1 -- a self-organizing consensus protocol in which the network continuously re-forms its own coalitions, adaptively riding the upper envelope of all three regimes at $O(1)$ parallel consensus rounds. To measure value without opinion-grading, we score an emergent protocol by formally specifying it and deriving its complexity, the way distributed algorithms are analyzed. Two results follow. (i)~Emergence -- a crowd of the cheapest model, when heterogeneous, starts weak but its collective value compounds with $N$ and overtakes a crowd of a far stronger model that is homogeneous: a crossover that marks a scaling law for collaboration rather than for scale. (ii)~Reflexivity -- a heterogeneous network, given only its own problem and no design hints, converges on ANet Patu-1 itself, reconstructing the high-dimensional law that governs its own connective value.

This paper develops a continuum theory of exit-and-join coalition dynamics in nonatomic cooperative games. We extend the Aumann-Shapley value and the Aumann-Drèze value to coalition structures in which each coalition is treated as a restricted nonatomic game, yielding a marginal-contribution-based payoff density that governs incentives for agents to remain in, exit, or join coalitions. We derive deterministic mean-field dynamics from decentralized switching rules and show that payoff-difference switching recovers replicator dynamics as a special case. We characterize exit-and-join equilibrium by the absence of profitable positive-mass deviations and prove its equivalence with stationarity of the induced mass dynamics under incentive-compatible and strictly payoff-responsive switching rates. For mass-based cooperative games, we construct a Lyapunov function and establish global convergence under strict concavity. We further show that the equilibrium is equivalent to a Wardrop equilibrium of an induced nonatomic population game and admits a variational inequality formulation. The framework is extended to incorporate switching costs and endogenous coalition acceptance rules, leading to constrained equilibria characterized by quasi-variational inequalities. The proposed theory unifies cooperative value allocation, noncooperative coalition mobility, mean-field dynamics, evolutionary game theory, and population games within a common framework for analyzing coalition formation and adaptation in large-scale multi-agent systems.

This paper develops a multiscale model of coalition formation in which strategic exit-and-join decisions are coupled with tactical consensus dynamics inside coalitions. Coalition value is generated endogenously from within-coalition information aggregation, while Aumann-Dreze payoffs, switching frictions, and acceptance rules govern strategic reconfiguration. The framework introduces a fast-slow architecture in which transferable coalition value emerges from DeGroot-style consensus processes, while coalition structures evolve through incentive-driven exit-and-join dynamics. The analysis characterizes joint tactical-strategic equilibria, conditions for tactical and strategic unanimity, segregation, polarization, and cognitive barriers that sustain stable coalition structures. A fixed-point characterization and existence results are established for the coupled dynamics. Numerical experiments reveal an instability-consensus paradox: low or negative switching barriers may prevent strategic convergence while simultaneously promoting temporal mixing sufficient to achieve global tactical consensus. The results provide a unified perspective on coalition formation, consensus dynamics, information aggregation, and strategic stability in multi-agent systems.

This paper studies coalition formation as a decentralized dynamical process driven by unilateral exit-and-join decisions. Agents evaluate local moves using the Aumann-Dreze value, so payoffs are computed within the agent's current coalition rather than through a globally negotiated coalition structure. The resulting model links cooperative payoff allocation with noncooperative best-response behavior: a terminal partition is precisely a coalition structure with no admissible, individually profitable exit-and-join deviation. We establish equilibrium characterizations, identify conditions under which the dynamics admit scalar Lyapunov or exact-potential representations, and analyze how switching and acceptance costs shape local stability. Numerical experiments test finite-time stabilization, cost sensitivity, and a special convex-game benchmark.

Additively separable hedonic games (ASHGs) are a prominent model of coalition formation where agents' preferences are derived from their individual valuations of peers. While social welfare maximization in ASHGs has traditionally focused mostly on utilitarian welfare, Nash welfare -- a well-established metric in economics which balances fairness with efficiency and offers scale invariance -- has been entirely overlooked. In this paper, we initiate the study of Nash welfare in ASHGs. We point out desirable properties fulfilled by partitions with high Nash welfare. This includes guaranteed contractual Nash stability in symmetric games, even for any approximation of Nash welfare. This is particularly appealing since, as for other welfare notions, Nash welfare turns out to be NP-hard to maximize, even for the ASHG subclass of symmetric aversion to enemies games (AEGs). A main focus of our study is on approximation algorithms for the Nash welfare objective. We present packing-based algorithms with approximation ratios for well-established subclasses of ASHGs: $n-1$ for AEGs and $2n$ for appreciation of friends games. This is complemented by a strict inapproximability result showing it is NP-hard to approximate Nash welfare within a factor of $1.0000759$ in general ASHGs. Further, we investigate the restricted settings with an upper bound on the coalition size or number of coalitions, and draw the boundary between the cases admitting efficient algorithms and those yielding NP-hardness: bounding the allowed size or number of coalitions by $2$ admits polynomial-time solvability, whereas bounds of $3$ or more yield NP-hardness or unbounded inapproximability.

A key challenge in distributed coalition formation within characteristic function games is determining how to allocate the calculation of coalition values across a set of agents. The number of possible coalitions grows exponentially with the number of agents, and existing distributed approaches may produce uneven or redundant allocations, or assign coalitions to agents that are not themselves members. In this article, we present the Necklace-based Distributed Coalition Algorithm (N-DCA), a communication-free algorithm in which each agent independently determines its own coalition value calculation allocation using only its identifier and the total number of agents. The approach builds on the notion of Increment Arrays (IAs), for which we develop a complete mathematical framework: equivalence classes under circular shifts, periodic IAs, and a rotated designation scheme with formal load-balance guarantees (tight bounds). We establish a bijection between canonical representative IAs and two-colour combinatorial necklaces, enabling the use of efficient necklace generation algorithms to enumerate allocations in constant amortised time. N-DCA is, to the best of our knowledge, the only distributed coalition value calculation algorithm for unrestricted characteristic function games to provably satisfy five desirable properties: no inter-agent communication, equitable allocation, no redundancy, balanced load, and self-interest. An empirical evaluation against DCVC (Rahwan and Jennings 2007) demonstrates that, although DCVC is faster by a constant factor, this difference becomes negligible under realistic characteristic-function evaluation costs, while N-DCA offers advantages in working memory, scalability, and the self-interest guarantee.

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in multi-agent systems requiring strategic coordination. While recent work has analyzed LLM behavior in two-player games, coalition formation, where $n$ agents dynamically form cooperative groups, remains theoretically uncharacterized. We present the first framework grounding coalition formation in LLM agent networks in hedonic game theory with formal stability guarantees. We introduce the LLM Coalition Formation Game (LCFG), establish sufficient conditions for Nash-stable partitions, and prove complexity results. Our analysis reveals that LLM agents exhibit bounded rationality characterized by $ε$-rational preferences; we provide both deterministic existence guarantees and consistency-driven stability bounds whose predictions are consistent with empirical outcomes. Experiments with GPT-4, Claude-3, and Llama-3 across 2,400 episodes validate our framework: LLM coalitions achieve Nash stability in 73.2% of cases under our Coalition-of-Thought (CoalT) protocol, compared to 58.4% under chain-of-thought and 41.8% under standard prompting ($p < 0.001$). Our framework provides theoretical foundations for designing stable multi-agent LLM systems.

We propose image segmentation as a visual diagnostic testbed for coalition formation in hedonic games. Modeling pixels as agents on a graph, we study how a granularization parameter shapes equilibrium fragmentation and boundary structure. On the Weizmann single-object benchmark, we relate multi-coalition equilibria to binary protocols by measuring whether the converged coalitions overlap with a foreground ground-truth. We observe transitions from cohesive to fragmented yet recoverable equilibria, and finally to intrinsic failure under excessive fragmentation. Our core contribution links multi-agent systems with image segmentation by quantifying the impact of mechanism design parameters on equilibrium structures.

Coalition formation studies how to partition a set of agents into disjoint coalitions under consideration of their preferences. We study the classical objective of stability in a variant of additively separable hedonic games where agents can change their valuations. Our objective is to find a stable partition after each change. To minimize the reconfiguration cost, we search for nearby stable coalition structures. Our focus is on stability concepts based on single-agent deviations. We present a detailed picture of the complexity of finding nearby stable coalition structures in additively separable hedonic games, for both symmetric and non-symmetric valuations. Our results show that the problem is NP-complete for Nash stability, individual stability, contractual Nash stability, and contractual individual stability. We complement these results by presenting polynomial-time algorithms for contractual Nash stability and contractual individual stability under restricted symmetric valuations. Finally, we show that these algorithms guarantee a bounded average distance over long sequences of updates.

We initiate the study of control in hedonic games, where an external actor influences coalition formation by adding or deleting agents. We consider three basic control goals (1) enforcing that an agent is not alone (NA); (2) enforcing that a pair of agents is in the same coalition (PA); (3) enforcing that all agents are in the same grand coalition (GR), combined with two control actions: adding agents (AddAg) or deleting agents (DelAg). We analyze these problems for friend-oriented and additive preferences under individual rationality, individual stability, Nash stability, and core stability. We provide a complete computational complexity classification for control in hedonic games.