We study the setting of single-winner elections with ordinal preferences where candidates might be members of \emph{alliances} (which may correspond to e.g., political parties, factions, or coalitions). However, we do not assume that candidates from the same alliance are necessarily adjacent in voters' rankings. In such case, every classical voting rule is vulnerable to the spoiler effect, i.e., the presence of a candidate may harm his or her alliance. We therefore introduce a new idea of \emph{alliance-aware} voting rules which extend the classical ones. We show that our approach is superior both to using classical cloneproof voting rules and to running primaries within alliances before the election. We introduce several alliance-aware voting rules and show that they satisfy the most desirable standard properties of their classical counterparts as well as newly introduced axioms for the model with alliances which, e.g., exclude the possibility of the spoiler effect. Our rules have natural definitions and are simple enough to explain to be used in practice.
Client perceptions of the therapeutic alliance are critical for counseling effectiveness. Accurately capturing these perceptions remains challenging, as traditional post-session questionnaires are burdensome and often delayed, while existing computational approaches produce coarse scores, lack interpretable rationales, and fail to model holistic session context. We present CARE, an LLM-based framework to automatically predict multi-dimensional alliance scores and generate interpretable rationales from counseling transcripts. Built on the CounselingWAI dataset and enriched with 9,516 expert-curated rationales, CARE is fine-tuned using rationale-augmented supervision with the LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct backbone. Experiments show that CARE outperforms leading LLMs and substantially reduces the gap between counselor evaluations and client-perceived alliance, achieving over 70% higher Pearson correlation with client ratings. Rationale-augmented supervision further improves predictive accuracy. CARE also produces high-quality, contextually grounded rationales, validated by both automatic and human evaluations. Applied to real-world Chinese online counseling sessions, CARE uncovers common alli
Different variations of alliances in graphs have been introduced into the graph-theoretic literature about twenty years ago. More broadly speaking, they can be interpreted as groups that collaborate to achieve a common goal, for instance, defending themselves against possible attacks from outside. In this paper, we initiate the study of reconfiguring alliances. This means that, with the understanding of having an interconnection map given by a graph, we look at two alliances of the same size~$k$ and investigate if there is a reconfiguration sequence (of length at most~$\ell$) formed by alliances of size (at most)~$k$ that transfers one alliance into the other one. Here, we consider different (now classical) movements of tokens: sliding, jumping, addition/removal. We link the latter two regimes by introducing the concept of reconfiguration monotonicity. Concerning classical complexity, most of these reconfiguration problems are \textsf{PSPACE}-complete, although some are solvable in \textsf{Log\-SPACE}. We also consider these reconfiguration questions through the lense of parameterized algorithms and prove various \textsf{FPT}-results, in particular concerning the combined parameter
Cyber-warfare has become the norm in current ongoing military conflicts. Over the past decade, numerous examples have shown the extent to which nation-states become vulnerable if they do not focus on building their cyber capacities. Adding to the inherent complexity of cyberwar scenarios, a state is usually a member of one or more alliances. Alliance policies and internal struggles could shape the individual actions of member states; intuitively, this also holds for the cyber domain. In this paper, we define and study a simple Cyber Alliance Game with the objective of understanding the fundamental influence of alliances on cyber conflicts between nation-states. Specifically, we focus on the decision of whether to exploit a newly found vulnerability individually or share it with the alliance. First, we characterize the impact of vulnerability-sharing rewards on the resulting equilibrium. Second, we study the implications of the internal power structure of alliances on cyberwar outcomes and infer the expected behavior of Dictator, Veto, and Dummy players. Finally, we investigate how alliances can nudge their members via rewards and punishments to adhere to their defensive or offensiv
How do different alliance mechanisms compare? In this work, we analyze various methods of forming an alliance in the Coalitional General Lotto game, a simple model of competitive resource allocation. In the game, Players 1 and 2 independently compete against a common Adversary by allocating their limited resource budgets towards separate sets of contests; an agent wins a contest by allocating more resources towards it than their opponent. In this setting, we study three alliance mechanisms: budget transfers (resource donation), contest transfers (contest redistribution), and joint transfers (both simultaneously). For all three mechanisms, we study when they present opportunities for collective improvement (the sum of the Players' payoffs increases) or mutual improvement (both Players' individual payoffs increase). In our first result, we show that all three are fundamentally different with regards to mutual improvement; in particular, mutually beneficial budget and contest transfers exist in distinct, limited subsets of games, whereas mutually beneficial joint transfers exist in almost all games. However, in our second result, we demonstrate that all three mechanisms are equivalent
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph. For a non-empty subset of vertices $S\subseteq V$, and vertex $v\in V$, let $δ_S(v)=|\{u\in S:uv\in E\}|$ denote the cardinality of the set of neighbors of $v$ in $S$, and let $\bar{S}=V-S$. Consider the following condition: {equation}\label{alliancecondition} δ_S(v)\ge δ_{\bar{S}}(v)+k, \{equation} which states that a vertex $v$ has at least $k$ more neighbors in $S$ than it has in $\bar{S}$. A set $S\subseteq V$ that satisfies Condition (\ref{alliancecondition}) for every vertex $v \in S$ is called a \emph{defensive} $k$-\emph{alliance}; for every vertex $v$ in the neighborhood of $S$ is called an \emph{offensive} $k$-\emph{alliance}. A subset of vertices $S\subseteq V$, is a \emph{powerful} $k$-\emph{alliance} if it is both a defensive $k$-alliance and an offensive $(k +2)$-alliance. Moreover, a subset $X\subset V$ is a defensive (an offensive or a powerful) $k$-alliance free set if $X$ does not contain any defensive (offensive or powerful, respectively) $k$-alliance. In this article we study the relationships between defensive (offensive, powerful) $k$-alliance free sets in Cartesian product graphs and defensive (offensive, powerful) $k$-alliance free
When multiple agents are engaged in a network of conflict, some can advance their competitive positions by forming alliances with each other. However, the costs associated with establishing an alliance may outweigh the potential benefits. This study investigates costly alliance formation in the framework of coalitional Blotto games, in which two players compete separately against a common adversary, and are able to collude by exchanging resources with one another. Previous work has shown that both players in the alliance can mutually benefit if one player unilaterally donates, or transfers, a portion of their budget to the other. In this letter, we consider a variation where the transfer of resources is inherently inefficient, meaning that the recipient of the transfer only receives a fraction of the donation. Our findings reveal that even in the presence of inefficiencies, mutually beneficial transfers are still possible. More formally, our main result provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of such transfers, offering insights into the robustness of alliance formation in competitive environments with resource constraints.
The Houma Alliance Book, one of history's earliest calligraphic examples, was unearthed in the 1970s. These artifacts were meticulously organized, reproduced, and copied by the Shanxi Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics. However, because of their ancient origins and severe ink erosion, identifying characters in the Houma Alliance Book is challenging, necessitating the use of digital technology. In this paper, we propose a new ancient handwritten character recognition database for the Houma alliance book, along with a novel benchmark based on deep learning architectures. More specifically, a collection of 26,732 characters samples from the Houma Alliance Book were gathered, encompassing 327 different types of ancient characters through iterative annotation. Furthermore, benchmark algorithms were proposed by combining four deep neural network classifiers with two data augmentation methods. This research provides valuable resources and technical support for further studies on the Houma Alliance Book and other ancient characters. This contributes to our understanding of ancient culture and history, as well as the preservation and inheritance of humanity's cultural heritage.
The deterrent effect of military alliances is well documented and widely accepted. However, such work has typically assumed that alliances are exogenous. This is problematic as alliances may simultaneously influence the probability of conflict and be influenced by the probability of conflict. Failing to account for such endogeneity produces overly simplistic theories of alliance politics and barriers to identifying the causal effect of alliances on conflict. In this manuscript, I propose a solution to this theoretical and empirical modeling challenge. Synthesizing theories of alliance formation and the alliance-conflict relationship, I innovate an endogenous theory of alliances and conflict. I then test this theory using innovative generalized joint regression models that allow me to endogenize alliance formation on the causal path to conflict. Once doing so, I ultimately find that alliances neither deter nor provoke aggression. This has significant implications for our understanding of interstate conflict and alliance politics.
Trisecting agents, issues, and agent pairs are essential topics of three-way conflict analysis. They have been commonly studied based on either a rating or an auxiliary function. A rating function defines the positive, negative, or neutral ratings of agents on issues. An auxiliary function defines the alliance, conflict, and neutrality relations between agents. These functions measure two opposite aspects in a single function, leading to challenges in interpreting their aggregations over a group of issues or agents. For example, when studying agent relations regarding a set of issues, a standard aggregation takes the average of an auxiliary function concerning single issues. Therefore, a pair of alliance +1 and conflict -1 relations will produce the same result as a pair of neutrality 0 relations, although the attitudes represented by the two pairs are very different. To clarify semantics, we separate the two opposite aspects in an auxiliary function into a pair of alliance and conflict functions. Accordingly, we trisect the agents, issues, and agent pairs and investigate their applications in solving a few crucial questions in conflict analysis. Particularly, we explore the concep
A \emph{defensive} (\emph{offensive}) $k$-\emph{alliance} in $Γ=(V,E)$ is a set $S\subseteq V$ such that every $v$ in $S$ (in the boundary of $S$) has at least $k$ more neighbors in $S$ than it has in $V\setminus S$. A set $X\subseteq V$ is \emph{defensive} (\emph{offensive}) $k$-\emph{alliance free,} if for all defensive (offensive) $k$-alliance $S$, $S\setminus X eq\emptyset$, i.e., $X$ does not contain any defensive (offensive) $k$-alliance as a subset. A set $Y \subseteq V$ is a \emph{defensive} (\emph{offensive}) $k$-\emph{alliance cover}, if for all defensive (offensive) $k$-alliance $S$, $S\cap Y eq\emptyset$, i.e., $Y$ contains at least one vertex from each defensive (offensive) $k$-alliance of $Γ$. In this paper we show several mathematical properties of defensive (offensive) $k$-alliance free sets and defensive (offensive) $k$-alliance cover sets, including tight bounds on the cardinality of defensive (offensive) $k$-alliance free (cover) sets.
The therapeutic working alliance is a critical predictor of psychotherapy success. Traditionally, working alliance assessment relies on questionnaires completed by both therapists and patients. In this paper, we present COMPASS, a novel framework to directly infer the therapeutic working alliance from the natural language used in psychotherapy sessions. Our approach leverages advanced large language models (LLMs) to analyze session transcripts and map them to distributed representations. These representations capture the semantic similarities between the dialogues and psychometric instruments, such as the Working Alliance Inventory. Analyzing a dataset of over 950 sessions spanning diverse psychiatric conditions -- including anxiety (N=498), depression (N=377), schizophrenia (N=71), and suicidal tendencies (N=12) -- collected between 1970 and 2012, we demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in providing fine-grained mapping of patient-therapist alignment trajectories, offering interpretable insights for clinical practice, and identifying emerging patterns related to the condition being treated. By employing various deep learning-based topic modeling techniques in combination wi
An offensive alliance in a graph $Γ=(V,E)$ is a set of vertices $S\subset V$ where for every vertex $v$ in its boundary it holds that the majority of vertices in $v$'s closed neighborhood are in $S$. In the case of strong offensive alliance, strict majority is required. An alliance $S$ is called global if it affects every vertex in $V\backslash S$, that is, $S$ is a dominating set of $Γ$. The global offensive alliance number $γ_o(Γ)$ (respectively, global strong offensive alliance number $γ_{\hat{o}}(Γ)$) is the minimum cardinality of a global offensive (respectively, global strong offensive) alliance in $Γ$. If $Γ$ has global independent offensive alliances, then the \emph{global independent offensive alliance number} $γ_i(Γ)$ is the minimum cardinality among all independent global offensive alliances of $Γ$. In this paper we study mathematical properties of the global (strong) alliance number of cubic graphs. For instance, we show that for all connected cubic graph of order $n$, $$\frac{2n}{5}\le γ_i(Γ)\le \frac{n}{2}\le γ_{\hat{o}}(Γ)\le \frac{3n}{4} \le γ_{\hat{o}}({\cal L}(Γ))=γ_{o}({\cal L}(Γ))\le n,$$ where ${\cal L}(Γ)$ denotes the line graph of $Γ$. All the above bounds ar
The analysis of (social) networks and multi-agent systems is a central theme in Artificial Intelligence. Some line of research deals with finding groups of agents that could work together to achieve a certain goal. To this end, different notions of so-called clusters or communities have been introduced in the literature of graphs and networks. Among these, defensive alliance is a kind of quantitative group structure. However, all studies on the alliance so for have ignored one aspect that is central to the formation of alliances on a very intuitive level, assuming that the agents are preconditioned concerning their attitude towards other agents: they prefer to be in some group (alliance) together with the agents they like, so that they are happy to help each other towards their common aim, possibly then working against the agents outside of their group that they dislike. Signed networks were introduced in the psychology literature to model liking and disliking between agents, generalizing graphs in a natural way. Hence, we propose the novel notion of a defensive alliance in the context of signed networks. We then investigate several natural algorithmic questions related to this not
Competing strategies in an evolutionary game model, or species in a biosystem, can easily form a larger unit which protects them from the invasion of an external actor. Such a defensive alliance may have two, three, four or even more members. But how effective can be such formation against an alternative group composed by other competitors? To address this question we study a minimal model where a two-member and a four-member alliances fight in a symmetric and balanced way. By presenting representative phase diagrams, we systematically explore the whole parameter range which characterizes the inner dynamics of the alliances and the intensity of their interactions. The group formed by a pair, who can exchange their neighboring positions, prevail in the majority of the parameter region. The rival quartet can only win if their inner cyclic invasion rate is significant while the mixing rate of the pair is extremely low. At specific parameter values, when neither of the alliances is strong enough, new four-member solutions emerge where a rock-paper-scissors-like trio is extended by the other member of the pair. These new solutions coexist hence all six competitors can survive. The evolu
A set $S\subseteq V$ of vertices is an offensive alliance in an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ if each $v\in N(S)$ has at least as many neighbours in $S$ as it has neighbours (including itself) not in $S$. We study the classical and parameterized complexity of the Offensive Alliance problem, where the aim is to find a minimum size offensive alliance. Our focus here lies on natural parameter as well as parameters that measure the structural properties of the input instance. We enhance our understanding of the problem from the viewpoint of parameterized complexity by showing that (1) the problem is W[1]-hard parameterized by a wide range of fairly restrictive structural parameters such as the feedback vertex set number, treewidth, pathwidth, and treedepth of the input graph; we thereby resolve an open question stated by Bernhard Bliem and Stefan Woltran (2018) concerning the complexity of Offensive Alliance parameterized by treewidth, (2) unless ETH fails, Offensive Alliance problem cannot be solved in time $\mathcal{O}^{*}(2^{o(k \log k)})$ where $k$ is the solution size, (3) Offensive Alliance problem does not admit a polynomial kernel parameterized by solution size and vertex cover of
We introduce a new bivariate polynomial which we call the defensive alliance polynomial and denote it by da(G; x, y). It is a generalization of the alliance polynomial [Carballosa et al., 2014] and the strong alliance polynomial [Carballosa et al., 2016]. We show the relation between da(G; x, y) and the alliance, the strong alliance and the induced connected subgraph [Tittmann et al., 2011] polynomials. Then, we investigate information encoded in da(G; x, y) about G. We discuss the defensive alliance polynomial for the path graphs, the cycle graphs, the star graphs, the double star graphs, the complete graphs, the complete bipartite graphs, the regular graphs, the wheel graphs, the open wheel graphs, the friendship graphs, the triangular book graphs and the quadrilateral book graphs. Also, we prove that the above classes of graphs are characterized by its defensive alliance polynomial. A relation between induced subgraphs with order three and both subgraphs with order three and size three and two respectively, is proved to characterize the complete bipartite graphs. Finally, we present the defensive alliance polynomial of the graph formed by attaching a vertex to a complete graph.
A set $D$ of vertices of a graph is a \emph{defensive alliance} if, for each element of $D$, the majority of its neighbours are in $D$. We consider the notion of local minimality in this paper. We are interested in finding a locally minimal defensive alliance of maximum size. In Locally Minimal Defensive Alliance problem, given an undirected graph $G$, a positive integer $k$, the question is to check whether $G$ has a locally minimal defensive alliance of size at least $k$. This problem is known to be NP-hard, but its parameterized complexity remains open until now. We enhance our understanding of the problem from the viewpoint of parameterized complexity. The main results of the paper are the following: (1) Locally Minimal Defensive Alliance restricted to the graphs of minimum degree at least 2 is fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) when parameterized by the combined parameters solution size $k$, and maximum degree $Δ$ of the input graph, (2) Locally Minimal Defensive Alliance on the graphs of minimum degree at least 2, admits a kernel with at most $k^{k^{\mathcal{O}(k)}}$ vertices. In particular, the problem parameterized by $k$ restricted to $C_3$-free and $C_4$-free graphs of minim
As a predictive measure of the treatment outcome in psychotherapy, the working alliance measures the agreement of the patient and the therapist in terms of their bond, task and goal. Long been a clinical quantity estimated by the patients' and therapists' self-evaluative reports, we believe that the working alliance can be better characterized using natural language processing technique directly in the dialogue transcribed in each therapy session. In this work, we propose the Working Alliance Transformer (WAT), a Transformer-based classification model that has a psychological state encoder which infers the working alliance scores by projecting the embedding of the dialogues turns onto the embedding space of the clinical inventory for working alliance. We evaluate our method in a real-world dataset with over 950 therapy sessions with anxiety, depression, schizophrenia and suicidal patients and demonstrate an empirical advantage of using information about the therapeutic states in this sequence classification task of psychotherapy dialogues.
A set $S$ of vertices of a graph is a defensive alliance if, for each element of $S$, the majority of its neighbours is in $S$. We consider the notion of local minimality in this paper. We are interested in locally minimal defensive alliance of maximum size. We also look at connected version of defensive alliance. This problem is known to be NP-hard but its parameterized complexity remains open until now. We enhance our understanding of the problem from the viewpoint of parameterized complexity. The main results of the paper are the following: (1) Locally Minimal Defensive Alliance is NP-complete, even when restricted to planar graphs, (2) a randomized FPT algorithm for Exact Connected Locally Minimal Defensive Alliance parameterized by solution size, (3) Locally Minimal Defensive Alliance is fixed-parameter tractable (FPT) when parametrized by neighbourhood diversity, (4) Locally Minimal Defensive Alliance parameterized by treewidth is W[1]-hard and thus not FPT (unless FPT=W[1]), (5) Locally Minimal Defensive Alliance can be solved in polynomial time for graphs of bounded treewidth.