Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Banzhaf Power in Hierarchical Voting Games

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a generalized Banzhaf index, multiplied level by level through a voting hierarchy, recovers the exact Banzhaf power index for all hierarchical voting games, balanced or not, and the resulting algorithm runs in $O(n d…

desk verdict The balance insight is real, but the garbled EBPI definition and missing proof make the central theorem unsupportable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06871 v1 pith:6DVURXEX submitted 2025-01-12 cs.GT

John Randolph , Denizalp Goktas , Amy Greenwald This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT MSC 91A1291B12
keywords Banzhafpowerindexhierarchicalvotinggamesextendedmultiplicativedecompositionbalancedsentimentanalysisvocabularyselectionsocialchoice
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that the Banzhaf power index—the standard measure of how often a single voter is decisive—can be computed in hierarchical voting games by multiplying together a generalized local index at each level of the tree, even when the game is not balanced. If true, this makes exact voter power computable in time $O(n d K 2^K)$ instead of the exponential $O(n 2^n)$, which matters for large real systems such as national electorates, ensembled predictors, and word-level sentiment models. The key move is to introduce an extended index, EBPI, that keeps track of the numbers of winning and losing coalitions in sibling subgames, and to claim that a product of these extended indices equals ordinary BPI for every voter. The paper also applies the result to expose a hidden assumption in earlier recursive BPI formulas—balance—and to demonstrate the speedup on sentiment-based vocabulary selection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the extended Banzhaf power index (EBPI), defined in Equation (3) as a local measure of a voter's criticality that multiplies each critical coalition by the numbers of winning and losing coalitions in all sibling subgames. The companion recursive counters $\omega(k)$ and $\lambda(k)$ count winning and losing coalitions in every subgame of the tree, and these counts feed both the EBPI definition and the tree traversal. The multiplicative extended Banzhaf power index (MEBPI) is then the product of EBPI values along the path from the voter to the root. The claim is that this product, not the plain product of BPI values, is what equals BPI in general.

What would settle it

Take a flat weighted majority game with three voters of equal weight and quota two (the simplest balanced majority game). Compute each voter's EBPI directly from Equation (3) and compare with the standard BPI value of $\frac{1}{2}$; the paper's Lemma 3 predicts they are equal. If they differ, then EBPI is not an extension of BPI and Theorem 5 cannot hold as stated, since the base case of the hierarchy already breaks down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is Theorem 5: in every hierarchical voting game, balanced or unbalanced, the multiplicative extended Banzhaf power index (MEBPI) equals the ordinary Banzhaf power index (BPI) for every voter. The argument is that BPI's exponential counting over all coalitions can be factored level by level: the power of a leaf voter is their local decisiveness in their own subgame times the decisiveness of each ancestor in its parent's subgame, provided each local factor is measured by EBPI, which weights each sibling by the number of winning and losing coalitions it can form. In balanced games these weights cancel and EBPI reduces to BPI, so the classical multiplicative formula is recovered as a special case; in unbalanced games the extra weighting is what lets the product stay exact. Because the local factors are computed from a single tree traversal that counts winning and losing coalitions at every node, the claimed equality yields an algorithm whose cost is $O(n d K 2^K)$ for all voters.

Load-bearing premise

The equality theorem inherits all of its force from the claim that EBPI as defined in Equation (3) is a genuine extension of BPI—so in a flat voting game it must reduce exactly to the standard index, and in balanced hierarchical games it must coincide with it; if that base-case reduction fails, the product formula cannot be computing BPI.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exact Banzhaf power becomes computable for large hierarchical electorates: the run time $O(n d K 2^K)$ replaces $O(n 2^n)$, so games with millions of voters are tractable when the tree is shallow and narrow.
  • In balanced games the generalized index collapses to the ordinary one, so the classical MBPI decomposition is recovered as a special case, and balance is identified as the precise hidden assumption behind that decomposition.
  • The sentiment of a sentence can be treated as an unbalanced hierarchical vote over words; on review sentences up to 40 words, MEBPI stays close to exact BPI while being orders of magnitude faster (about 6 seconds versus 700 seconds for a 10-word sentence).
  • The measured power in the Slovenian National Council is a concrete payoff: a voter in Velenje has roughly three times the power of a voter in Ljubljana, a number that comes from the product formula rather than from enumerating two million voters.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Theorem 5 holds, the product-of-local-indices idea could carry over to permutation-based power indices, where the bottleneck is the same exponential enumeration; the paper names this direction as future work.
  • The EBPI weighting scheme suggests a sampling-based approximation: estimate $\omega$ and $\lambda$ by random subset counts, then run the recursive pass, to get an anytime approximate BPI with confidence bounds.
  • A natural testable extension is to replace the coarse binary sentiment classifier with a three-valued or continuous sentiment function; the paper notes ternary games as a future direction, and the extended index would need further modification because complements can be neutral in a way that breaks the current binary framework.
  • The vocabulary-selection application carries an implicit claim that grammatical parse trees mirror compositional semantics; if that correspondence degrades on longer or non-compositional sentences, the proxy error would grow—measurable by comparing MEBPI against exact BPI on sentences beyond length 15, where the baseline becomes infeasible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies hierarchical voting games, which are simple games structured as trees with voters at the leaves. It identifies a property called balance as the condition under which the standard multiplicative Banzhaf power index (MBPI) decomposition equals the Banzhaf power index (BPI). It then introduces an extended Banzhaf power index (EBPI) and a multiplicative version (MEBPI), and claims in Theorem 5 that MEBPI equals BPI in all hierarchical voting games, balanced or not, yielding an O(n d K 2^K) algorithm for exact BPI. The paper applies this to Slovenian National Council elections and to vocabulary selection in sentiment analysis, using Stanza's sentiment classifier as a characteristic function. The central theoretical claim is that MEBPI reproduces BPI exactly, and the experiments compare MEBPI and MBPI against naive BPI on small sentences.

Significance. If Theorem 5 is correct, the paper makes a useful contribution: it would give a polynomial-ish decomposition for exact BPI in hierarchical games that are not balanced, with an explicit complexity improvement over the naive exponential enumeration. The identification of balance as the key assumption behind the classical MBPI decomposition is also a clarifying observation, and the Slovenian National Council example is a nice illustration of the potential speedup. However, the current text does not support the central claim: the definition of EBPI in Eq. (3) is internally inconsistent under the paper's own flat-game convention, the proof of Theorem 5 is deferred to a supplementary file not present in this version, and the sentiment experiments apply the theory to a non-monotone classifier. The paper does not include machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, and as submitted it does not provide enough evidence for the main theorem.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (3), Lemma 3] Eq. (3) as printed contradicts Lemma 3. In a flat voting game, the denominator \prod_{j\in N\setminus\{i\}} 2^{|L(j)|-1} equals 2^{n-1}, while the numerator contains an additional factor 1/2^{n-1} inside the summation. Consequently p_i^{EBPI}(G) = p_i^{BPI}(G)/2^{n-1}, not p_i^{BPI}(G). This is not a cosmetic issue: Lemma 4 and Theorem 5 both rely on EBPI reducing to BPI in balanced cases, so the central equality is false as the definition is printed.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (3), Theorem 5] Eq. (3) is not a well-defined function of the local subgame used in the MEBPI recursion. It mixes the local child set E_{t(i)} with the global set N in the denominator, and the expression v(S\cup\{i\}) is undefined when S\cup\{i\} contains internal nodes under the semantics of Section 2.1, where v is defined on subsets of the leaf set N. On the three-leaf unbalanced tree described in the stress-test note (root OR of a unanimity game on a1,a2 and a leaf b), reading N as the global leaf set gives MEBPI_{a1}=1/16 instead of the exact BPI 1/4; only an unstated local reading gives the correct value. Theorem 5 therefore holds only under a corrected and explicitly stated definition that the paper does not provide.
  3. [Section 4, Theorems 2 and 5] All proofs are deferred to a supplementary file that is not present in this version; the text states 'All proofs appear in the supplementary material' in footnote 4 and again before Theorem 5. The central claim, Theorem 5, is therefore not proven in the submitted manuscript. I cannot verify the equality MEBPI=BPI or the claimed complexity bounds without that proof, and the proof is load-bearing for the paper's main contribution.
  4. [Section 5, Experiments] The experiments use Stanza's sentiment classifier as the characteristic function of a voting game. The paper itself acknowledges that sentences are not monotonic in their clauses and gives a concrete non-monotonic example, yet the theory of Sections 2-4 is restricted to monotone voting games with v(\emptyset)=0 and v(N)=1. A trained neural classifier does not automatically satisfy monotonicity, so the comparison of MEBPI to naive BPI on these sentences is outside the theorem's scope and does not validate Theorem 5. The paper should either construct a monotone characteristic function or explicitly frame the sentiment application as a heuristic use of the formalism rather than a consequence of the theorem.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Definitions] The domain of EBPI is unclear: Section 2 defines voters as leaf nodes N, but MEBPI applies p^{EBPI} to local subgames U_{t(j)} whose voter set E_{t(j)} may contain internal nodes, and Lemma 4 and Theorem 5 write p^{BPI}_i for i\in M even though BPI was defined only for voters i\in N. The paper should specify whether 'voting game' refers to the flat local game or the full hierarchical game in Eq. (3).
  2. [References] Reference [10] is cited as 'Seth J. Chandler. Yelp Dataset,' but the Yelp dataset is not authored by Chandler; this appears to be a citation error that should be corrected.
  3. [Section 4, Complexity discussion] The sentence 'The EBPI formula, which generalizes BPI, is a factor of K slower than the naive BPI formula' is confusing: the formula in Eq. (3) contains normalization terms beyond the standard 2^{n-1}, and the complexity comparison should be stated in terms of the algorithms rather than the index formula.
  4. [Section 5.1, Figure 1] Each data point in Figure 1 is an average over only 10 sentences; it would be helpful to report error bars or standard deviations, since the mean squared error comparisons are likely to be noisy and the visual difference between MBPI and MEBPI is a central experimental claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: EBPI is defined from winning/losing coalition counts, not from BPI, and Theorem 5 is asserted as a theorem rather than built into the definition.

full rationale

I examined the definitions of EBPI (Eq. 3), MEBPI, and the statements of Lemmas 3-4 and Theorem 5. EBPI is defined in terms of ω and λ, the numbers of winning and losing coalitions in subgames, together with the characteristic function; it is not defined in terms of BPI. The flat-game reduction to BPI (Lemma 3) follows by substitution because, for leaves, ω=λ=1 and |L(j)|=1, so the extra factors collapse to the standard BPI denominator. This is a definitional consequence, not a circular one. Theorem 5, which states MEBPI = BPI in all hierarchical voting games, is not derived from a definition that already contains the conclusion; its proof is deferred to a supplementary file. Missing proofs and the apparent ambiguity in Eq. (3) about whether N is the global leaf set or the local player set are correctness/well-definedness concerns, not circularity. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: the only relevant citation, Miller's MBPI decomposition, is external standard literature. The experiment compares MEBPI to a separately computed naive BPI baseline, so it is an external benchmark rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. I find no step where the target result is equivalent to its input by construction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces two new mathematical objects (EBPI and MEBPI) and relies on several domain assumptions for the sentiment application. The central claim is not supported by the text because the EBPI formula is inconsistent and the proof is deferred to a missing supplementary file.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The characteristic function is monotone and satisfies v(empty)=0 and v(N)=1.
    Assumed for all voting games in Section 2; the BPI formula (Eq. 2) uses differences v(S union {i}) minus v(S) which only count positive pivots if monotone.
  • ad hoc to paper Sentiment of a sentence is determined compositionally via a hierarchical voting game.
    The application in Section 5 models words as voters and parse-tree nodes as local games; the paper states this is an approximation because sentiment is not fully compositional.
  • ad hoc to paper Stanza's sentiment classifier output is treated as a valid characteristic function.
    Section 5 uses Stanza as the oracle; no independent validation of the classifier as a voting game is provided.
  • domain assumption The recursive counting formulas for omega(k) and lambda(k) correctly enumerate winning and losing coalitions in each subgame.
    Equations (4) and (5) are the basis for EBPI; they assume the local characteristic functions behave as stated.
invented entities (2)
  • Extended Banzhaf Power Index (EBPI)
    purpose: Generalizes BPI to unbalanced and hierarchical voting games so that a multiplicative decomposition matches BPI.
    The index is defined in the paper; its only evidence is the unverified Theorem 5 and the experiments, which show approximation, not exact equality.
  • Multiplicative Extended Banzhaf Power Index (MEBPI)
    purpose: Algorithm to compute BPI efficiently in hierarchical voting games.
    The algorithm is defined in the paper; its correctness depends on the unverified Theorem 5.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Banzhaf Power in Hierarchical Voting Games." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6DVURXEX

@misc{pith2026250106871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Banzhaf Power in Hierarchical Voting Games},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6DVURXEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06871}
}
read the original abstract

The Banzhaf Power Index (BPI) is a method of measuring the power of voters in determining the outcome of a voting game. Some voting games exhibit a hierarchical structure, including the US electoral college and ensemble learning methods; we call such games hierarchical voting games. It is generally understood that BPI in hierarchical voting games can be computed via a recursive decomposition of the hierarchy, which can substantially reduce the calculation's complexity. We identify a key (previously undocumented) assumption on which this decomposition is based, namely balance, meaning one group of voters has enough votes to win whenever the complementary group of voters does not, and vice versa. We then introduce a generalization of BPI that we call Extended BPI (EBPI) for all voting games, including those that are not balanced, which simplifies to BPI in balanced games. We show that BPI in unbalanced hierarchical voting games decomposes in terms of EBPI at each level in the hierarchy, which yields computational savings analogous to those achieved in the balanced case. As a sample application, we take advantage of the compositionality of language, and model the impact of individual words on a sentence's sentiment as a voting game. As the complement of a phrase in a sentence does not necessarily have the opposite sentiment, this voting game is unbalanced and requires our decomposition of BPI in terms of EBPI. Our results suggest that EBPI is an effective proxy for BPI (because the meaning of a sentence is not always 100\% compositional), and demonstrate a dramatic improvement in run time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The runtime and error of computing MBPI and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

    Amina Adadi and Mohammed Berrada. “Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)”. In: IEEE Access 6 (2018), pp. 52138–52160. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Actual voting power of the IMF members based on their political-economic integration

    Fuad Aleskerov, Valeriy Kalyagin, and Kirill Pogorelskiy. “Actual voting power of the IMF members based on their political-economic integration”. In: Annals of Economics and Statistics 48.9 (2008), pp. 1554–1569. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.mcm.2008.05.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2008.05.020 2008

  3. [3]

    The distribu- tion of power in the European constitution

    E. Algaba, J. M. Bilbao, and J. R. Fernandez. “The distribu- tion of power in the European constitution”. In: European Journal of Operational Research 176.3 (2007), pp. 1752–

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    The Reapportionment Cases: One Person, One V ote-One V ote, One Value

    Carl A. Auerbach. “The Reapportionment Cases: One Person, One V ote-One V ote, One Value”. In:The Supreme Court Review 1964 (1964), pp. 1–87. ISSN : 00819557, 21582459. URL: http : / / www. jstor. org / stable / 3108693 (visited on 08/15/2022)

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    Approximating power indices: theo- retical and empirical analysis

    Yoram Bachrach et al. “Approximating power indices: theo- retical and empirical analysis”. In: Auton Agent Multi-Agent Systems 20 (2009), pp. 105–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10458-009-9078-9

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    One Man, 3.312 V otes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Elecotral College

    John F. Banzhaf. “One Man, 3.312 V otes: A Mathematical Analysis of the Elecotral College”. In: Villanova Law Review 13 (2 1968), pp. 304–332. URL: https://digitalcommons.law. villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1780&context= vlr

    work page 1968

  7. [7]

    Weighted V oting Doesn’t Work: A Mathe- matical Analysis

    John F. Banzhaf. “Weighted V oting Doesn’t Work: A Mathe- matical Analysis”. In: Rutgers Law Review 19 (1965), p. 317

    work page 1965

  8. [8]

    A comparison be- tween the methods of apportionment using power indices: the case of the US presidential elections

    Fabrice Barthelemy and Mathieu Martin. “A comparison be- tween the methods of apportionment using power indices: the case of the US presidential elections”. In: Annals of Eco- nomics and Statistics 101 (2011), pp. 87–106. DOI: https: //doi.org/10.2307/41615475

    work page doi:10.2307/41615475 2011

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Chandler

    Seth J. Chandler. WolframAlpha BanzhafPowerIndex. https:// resources.wolframcloud.com/FunctionRepository/resources/ BanzhafPowerIndex/. 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Chandler

    Seth J. Chandler. Yelp Dataset. https://www.yelp.com/dataset. 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    How Large a V ocabulary Does Text Classification Need? A Variational Approach to V ocabulary Selection

    Wenhu Chen et al. “How Large a V ocabulary Does Text Classification Need? A Variational Approach to V ocabulary Selection”. In: CoRR abs/1902.10339 (2019). arXiv: 1902. 10339. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.10339

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Shapley Value for Multi- choice Cooperative Games

    T.E.S. Raghavan Chih-Ru Hsiao. “Shapley Value for Multi- choice Cooperative Games”. In:Games and Economic Behav- ior 5 (2 1993), pp. 240–256. ISSN : 0899-8256. URL: https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825683710146

    1993

  5. [13]

    Emergence of Compositional Lan- guage with Deep Generational Transmission

    Michael Cogswell et al. Emergence of Compositional Lan- guage with Deep Generational Transmission . 2019. DOI: 10 . 48550 / ARXIV. 1904 . 09067.URL: https : / / arxiv. org / abs/1904.09067

    2019 doi arXiv

  6. [15]

    Ternary V oting Games

    Moshe Felsenthal Dan S.; Machover. “Ternary V oting Games”. In: International Journal of Game Theory26 (3 1997), pp. 335–

    1997

  7. [16]

    Haifa, Israel: Edward Elgar, 1998

    Moshe Felsenthal Dan S.; Machover, ed.The Measurement of Voting Power Theory and Practice, Problems and Paradoxes. Haifa, Israel: Edward Elgar, 1998

    1998

  8. [17]

    The power ranking of the members of the Agricultural Committee of the European Parliament

    Imre Ferto et al. “The power ranking of the members of the Agricultural Committee of the European Parliament”. In: European Review of Agricultural Economics 47.5 (2020), pp. 1897–1919. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbaa011

    2020 doi

  9. [18]

    One Person, One V ote: Estimating the Prevalence of Double V oting in U.S. Presidential Elections

    Sharad Goel et al. “One Person, One V ote: Estimating the Prevalence of Double V oting in U.S. Presidential Elections”. In: American Political Science Review114.2 (2020), pp. 456–

    2020

  10. [19]

    Constitution of Slovenia

    Peter Jambrek. Constitution of Slovenia. 1990. DOI: https: //www.us-rs.si/media/constitution.pdf

    1990

  11. [20]

    Improved Feature Importance Com- putations for Tree Models: Shapley vs

    Adam Karczmarz et al. Improved Feature Importance Com- putations for Tree Models: Shapley vs. Banzhaf. 2021. DOI: 10.48550/ARXIV.2108.04126. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2108.04126

    2021 doi arXiv

  12. [21]

    Brexit and the Distribution of Power in the Council of the EU

    Werner Kirsch. “Brexit and the Distribution of Power in the Council of the EU”. In:CEPS (2016). https://www.ceps.eu/ceps- publications/brexit-and-distribution-power-council-eu/

    2016

  13. [22]

    V olkswagen vs. Porsche: a power-index analysis

    Roland Kirstein. “V olkswagen vs. Porsche: a power-index analysis”. In: International Journal of Corporate Governance 2.1 (2010), pp. 1–20

    2010

  14. [23]

    Faster algorithms for computing power indices in weighted voting games

    Bettina Klinz and Gerhard J. Woeginger. “Faster algorithms for computing power indices in weighted voting games”. In: Mathematical Social Sciences 49.1 (2005), pp. 111–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2004.06.002

    2005 doi

  15. [24]

    Feature impor- tance scores and lossless feature pruning using Banzhaf power indices

    Bogdan Kulynych and Carmela Tronscoso. “Feature impor- tance scores and lossless feature pruning using Banzhaf power indices”. In: NIPS Symposium on Interpretable Machine Learning (2017). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.04992

    2017 arXiv

  16. [25]

    V ocab- ulary Selection Strategies for Neural Machine Translation

    Gurvan L’Hostis, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. “V ocab- ulary Selection Strategies for Neural Machine Translation”. In: CoRR abs/1610.00072 (2016). arXiv: 1610.00072. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.00072

    2016 arXiv

  17. [26]

    DRZAVNI SVET–THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SLOVENIA

    Ministere De L’interior. DRZAVNI SVET–THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SLOVENIA. http://www.senat.fr/senatsdumonde/ english/slovenie.html/. 2023

    2023

  18. [27]

    The Relationship Between Shareholding Con- centration and Shareholder V oting Power in British Compa- nies: A Study of the Application of Power Indices for Simple Games

    Dennis Leech. “The Relationship Between Shareholding Con- centration and Shareholder V oting Power in British Compa- nies: A Study of the Application of Power Indices for Simple Games”. In: Management Science 34.4 (1988), pp. 509–527. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.34.4.509

    1988 doi

  19. [28]

    COUNCILLORS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF VELENJE

    Ljubljana. COUNCILLORS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF VELENJE. https://www.ljubljana.si/en/municipality/the-city- council/. 2023

    2023

  20. [29]

    A Priori V oting Power and the US Electoral College

    N.R. Miller. “A Priori V oting Power and the US Electoral College”. In: Power, Voting, and Voting Power(Mar. 2013). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-35929-3_22

    2013 doi

  21. [30]

    Game-theoretic V ocabulary Selection via the Shapley Value and Banzhaf Index

    Roma Patel et al. “Game-theoretic V ocabulary Selection via the Shapley Value and Banzhaf Index”. In: NAACL-HLT. Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 2021, pp. 2789–2798. URL: https://doi.org/10. 18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.223

    2021

  22. [31]

    The Elementary Statistics of Majority V oting

    L.S. Penrose. “The Elementary Statistics of Majority V oting”. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 109 (1 1946), pp. 53–57. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2981392? origin=crossref

    1946

  23. [32]

    The Performance of Measures of Shareholder Influence

    Stefan Prigge. “The Performance of Measures of Shareholder Influence”. In: SSRN Electronic Journal (Feb. 2007). DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.966086

    2007 doi

  24. [33]

    Stanza: A Python Natural Language Process- ing Toolkit for Many Human Languages

    Peng Qi et al. “Stanza: A Python Natural Language Process- ing Toolkit for Many Human Languages”. In: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) System Demonstrations (2020). URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.07082

    2020 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Assessment of Political Power in the Israeli Knesset

    Amnon Rapoport and Esther Golan. “Assessment of Political Power in the Israeli Knesset”. In: American Political Science Review 79.3 (1985), pp. 673–692. DOI: 10.2307/1956837

    1985 doi

  26. [35]

    Sampling methods to estimate the Banzhaf-Owen value

    A. Saavedra-Nieves and M.G. Fiestras-Janeiro. “Sampling methods to estimate the Banzhaf-Owen value”. In: Ann Oper Res 301 (May 2021), pp. 199–223. DOI: 10.1007/s10479- 020-03614-8

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visual- izing and Interpreting Deep Learning Models

    Wojciech Samek, Thomas Wiegand, and Klaus-Robert Müller. “Explainable Artificial Intelligence: Understanding, Visual- izing and Interpreting Deep Learning Models”. In: CoRR abs/1708.08296 (2017). arXiv: 1708.08296. URL: http://arxiv. org/abs/1708.08296

    2017 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Power Index of Finnish Parties: Evolution of the Parliament System

    J Antionio Seijas-Marcias. “Power Index of Finnish Parties: Evolution of the Parliament System”. In: Finnish-German Yearbook of Political Economy41.61 (2019), pp. 41–61

    2019

  29. [38]

    Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units

    Rico Sennrich, Barry Haddow, and Alexandra Birch. “Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units”. In: CoRR abs/1508.07909 (2015). arXiv: 1508.07909. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.07909

    2015 arXiv

  30. [39]

    A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System

    L. S. Shapley and Martin Shubik. “A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of Power in a Committee System”. In: Amer- ican Political Science Review 48.3 (1954), pp. 787–792. DOI: 10.2307/1951053

    1954 doi

  31. [40]

    Speeding Up Neural Machine Translation Decoding by Shrinking Run-time V ocabulary

    Xing Shi and Kevin Knight. “Speeding Up Neural Machine Translation Decoding by Shrinking Run-time V ocabulary”. In: Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers). Vancouver, Canada: Association for Computatio...

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    COUNCILLORS OF THE MUNICI- PALITY OF VELENJE

    Municipality Velenje. COUNCILLORS OF THE MUNICI- PALITY OF VELENJE. https://www.velenje.si/en/municipality/ council/. 2023

    2023

  33. [42]

    Pivotal states in the Electoral College, 1880 to 2004

    John R. Wright. “Pivotal states in the Electoral College, 1880 to 2004”. In: Public Choice 139 (2009), pp. 21–37. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-008-9374- y

    2009 doi

  34. [43]

    Peyton Young and Shmuel Zamir, eds.Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications

    H. Peyton Young and Shmuel Zamir, eds.Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications. 1st ed. V ol. 4. Elsevier, 2015, pp. 239–326. URL: https : / / EconPapers . repec . org / RePEc:eee:gamhes:4

    2015

  35. [351]

    URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226098971_ Ternary_V oting_Games

  36. [469]

    DOI: 10.1017/S000305541900087X

    doi

  37. [1766]

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.12.002

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.