Abstract We consider average- and min-based altruistic hedonic games and study the problem of verifying popular and strictly popular coalition structures. While strict popularity verification has been shown to be coNP-complete in min-based altruistic hedonic games, this problem has been open for equal- and altruistic-treatment average-based altruistic hedonic games. We solve these two open cases of strict popularity verification and then provide the first complexity results for popularity verification in (average- and min-based) altruistic hedonic games, where we cover all three degrees of altruism.

We study the formation of stable outcomes via simple dynamics in cardinal hedonic games, where the utilities of agents change over time depending on the history of the coalition formation process. Specifically, we analyze situations where members of a coalition decrease their utility for a leaving agent (resent) or increase their utility for a joining agent (appreciation). We show that in contrast to classical dynamics, for resentful or appreciative agents, dynamics are guaranteed to converge under mild conditions for various stability concepts. Thereby, we establish that both resent and appreciation are strong stability-driving forces.

Hedonic games are coalition formation games in which players have preferences over the coalitions they can join. For a long time, all models of representing hedonic games were based upon selfish players only. Among the known ways of representing hedonic games compactly, we focus on friend-oriented hedonic games and propose a novel model for them that takes into account not only the players’ own preferences but also their friends’ preferences. Depending on the order in which players look at their own or their friends’ preferences, we distinguish three degrees of altruism: selfish-first, equal-treatment, and altruistic-treatment preferences. We study both the axiomatic properties of these games and the computational complexity of problems related to various common stability concepts.

Nguyen et al. [2016] introduced altruistic hedonic games in which agents’ utilities depend not only on their own preferences but also on those of their friends in the same coalition. We propose to extend their model to coalition formation games in general, considering also the friends in other coalitions. Comparing the two models, we argue that excluding some friends from the altruistic behavior of an agent is a major disadvantage that comes with the restriction to hedonic games. After introducing our model, we additionally study some common stability notions and provide a computational analysis of the associated verification and existence problems.

We propose a new representation setting for hedonic games, where each agent partitions the set of other agents into friends, enemies, and neutral agents, with friends and enemies being ranked. Under the assumption that preferences are monotonic (respectively, antimonotonic) with respect to the addition of friends (respectively, enemies), we propose a bipolar extension of the responsive extension principle, and use this principle to derive the (partial) preferences of agents over coalitions. Then, for a number of solution concepts, we characterize partitions that necessarily or possibly satisfy them, and we study the related problems in terms of their complexity.