The Harsanyi paradox and the “right to talk” in bargaining among coalitions

We describe a coalitional value from a non-cooperative point of view, assuming coalitions are formed for the purpose of bargaining. The idea is that all the players have the same chances to make proposals. This means that players maintain their own “right to talk” when joining a coalition. The resulting value coincides with the weighted Shapley value in the game between coalitions, with weights given by the size of the coalitions. Moreover, the Harsanyi paradox (forming a coalition may be disadvantageous) disappears for convex games.     

MODELS FOR COOPERATION AND CONSPIRACY IN FISHERIES: CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME

Fisheries regulation is considered necessary to counteract the effects of competitive forces which can lead to a “tragedy of the commons”. Yet management initiatives have often failed because they did not take into account competitive responses of fishing enterprises. In particular, open access fisheries provide strong incentives for the development of excessive harvesting capacity. This in turn leads to harvesting that is concentrated in space and time, with adverse effects on both the resource and markets. A coalition of fishermen, such as a fishermen's cooperative, has interests similar to those of a sole owner, and thus would be expected to produce more efficient behaviour. In practice, however, fishermen's cooperatives seldom persist. Game theory is used to explore relationships between the coalition structure of the industry, economic variables, and regulation. The models are based loosely on a purse seine fishery for herring. The results suggest that the potential to form stable coalitions is affected by changes in price and harvest. Changes in regulation also affect stability of coalitions. When interpreted in the light of historical changes in the herring fishery, these results suggest that industry may not accept regulations which do not permit formation of stable coalitions.     

A value for mixed action-set games

We extend the Aumann-Shapley value to mixed action-set games, i.e., multilevel TU games where there are simultaneously two types of players: discrete players that possess a finite number of activity levels in which they can join a coalition, and continuous players that possess a continuum of levels. Received February 1999/Final version October 2000     

Cooperative games of choosing partners and forming coalitions in the marketplace

Two games of interacting between a coalition of players in a marketplace and the residual players acting there are discussed, along with two approaches to fair imputation of gains of coalitions in cooperative games that are based on the concepts of the Shapley vector and core of a cooperative game. In the first game, which is an antagonistic one, the residual players try to minimize the coalition's gain, whereas in the second game, which is a noncooperative one, they try to maximize their own gain as a coalition. A meaningful interpretation of possible relations between gains and Nash equilibrium strategies in both games considered as those played between a coalition of firms and its surrounding in a particular marketplace in the framework of two classes of n-person games is presented. A particular class of games of choosing partners and forming coalitions in which models of firms operating in the marketplace are those with linear constraints and utility functions being sums of linear and bilinear functions of two corresponding vector arguments is analyzed, and a set of maximin problems on polyhedral sets of connected strategies which the problem of choosing a coalition for a particular firm is reducible to are formulated based on the firm models of the considered kind.     

Dynamic resource allocation in fuzzy coalitions: a game theoretic model

We introduce an efficient and dynamic resource allocation mechanism within the framework of a cooperative game with fuzzy coalitions (cooperative fuzzy game). A fuzzy coalition in a resource allocation problem can be so defined that membership grades of the players in it are proportional to the fractions of their total resources. We call any distribution of the resources possessed by the players, among a prescribed number of coalitions, a fuzzy coalition structure and every membership grade (equivalently fraction of the total resources), a resource investment. It is shown that this resource investment is influenced by the satisfaction of the players in regard to better performance under a cooperative setup. Our model is based on the real life situations, where possibly one or more players compromise on their resource investments in order to help forming coalitions.     

The lattice of embedded subsets

In cooperative game theory, games in partition function form are real-valued function on the set of the so-called embedded coalitions, that is, pairs (S,π) where S is a subset (coalition) of the set N of players, and π is a partition of N containing S. Despite the fact that many studies have been devoted to such games, surprisingly nobody clearly defined a structure (i.e., an order) on embedded coalitions, resulting in scattered and divergent works, lacking unification and proper analysis. The aim of the paper is to fill this gap, thus to study the structure of embedded coalitions (called here embedded subsets), and the properties of games in partition function form.     

Coalitions and payoffs in three‐person sequential games: Initial tests of two formal models

In this paper we develop two formal models predicting coalitions and payoffs among rank striving players in a sequential three‐person game. We test the models’ predictions with data from a laboratory study of eleven male triads. Each triad plays a sequence of games; in each game a two‐person coalition forms and divides the coalition's point value between the two coalition partners. Participants know that the sequence of games will end without warning at a randomly chosen time; at the sequence's end each player's monetary payoff is a linear function of the rank of his accumulated point score, relative to those of the other members of his triad. The complexity of this situation prevents players and analysts from representing it as a single game; thus they are unable to use n‐person game theory to identify optimal strategies. Consequently, we assume that players, unable to develop strategies that are demonstrably optimal in the long run, adopt certain bargaining heuristics and surrogate short run objectives.

The two models follow the same basic outline; they differ, however, in the planning horizon they assume players to use. Proceeding from a priori assumptions concerning each player's decision calculus and the bargaining process, the two models state the probability that each coalition forms and predict the point divisions in the winning coalition. The laboratory data provide consistently strong support for the predictions of both models.     

Axiomatizations of the Shapley value for games on augmenting systems

This paper deals with cooperative games in which only certain coalitions are allowed to form. There have been previous models developed to confront the problem of unallowable coalitions. Games restricted by a communication graph were introduced by Myerson and Owen. In their model, the feasible coalitions are those that induce connected subgraphs. Another type of model is introduced in Gilles, Owen and van den Brink. In their model, the possibilities of coalition formation are determined by the positions of the players in a so-called permission structure. Faigle proposed another model for cooperative games defined on lattice structures. We introduce a combinatorial structure called augmenting system which is a generalization of the antimatroid structure and the system of connected subgraphs of a graph. In this framework, the Shapley value of games on augmenting systems is introduced and two axiomatizations of this value are showed.     

On the Structural Stability of Values for Cooperative Games

It is generally assumed that any set of players can form a feasible coalition for classical cooperative games. But, in fact, some players may withdraw from the current game and form a union, if this makes them better paid than proposed. Based on the principle of coalition split, this paper presents an endogenous procedure of coalition formation by levels and bargaining for payoffs simultaneously, where the unions formed in the previous step continue to negotiate with others in the next step as “individuals,” looking for maximum share of surplus by organizing themselves as a partition. The structural stability of the induced payoff configuration is discussed, using two stability criteria of core notion for cooperative games and strong equilibrium notion for noncooperative games.

     

The consistent Shapley value for hyperplane games

A new value is defined for n-person hyperplane games, i.e., non-sidepayment cooperative games, such that for each coalition, the Pareto optimal set is linear. This is a generalization of the Shapley value for side-payment games. It is shown that this value is consistent in the sense that the payoff in a given game is related to payoffs in reduced games (obtained by excluding some players) in such a way that corrections demanded by coalitions of a fixed size are cancelled out. Moreover, this is the only consistent value which satisfies Pareto optimality (for the grand coalition), symmetry and covariancy with respect to utility changes of scales. It can be reached by players who start from an arbitrary Pareto optimal payoff vector and make successive adjustments.     

A sufficiency condition for coalitive pareto-optimal solutions

In ak-player, nonzero-sum differential game, there exists the possibility that a group of players will form a coalition and work together. If allk players form the coalition, the criterion usually chosen is Pareto optimality whereas, if the coalition consists of only one player, a minmax or Nash equilibrium solution is sought.In this paper, games with coalitions of more than one but less thank players are considered. Coalitive Pareto optimality is chosen as the criterion. Sufficient conditions are presented for coalitive Pareto-optimal solutions, and the results are illustrated with an example.     

Coalition formation in the presence of continuing conflict

This paper studies endogenous coalition formation in a rivalry environment where continuing conflict exists. A group of heterogeneous players compete for a prize with the probability of winning for a player depending on his strength as well as the distribution of strengths among his rivals. Players can pool their strengths together to increase their probabilities of winning as a group through coalition formation. The players in the winning coalition will compete further until one individual winner is left. We show that in any equilibrium there are only two coalitions in the initial stage of the contest. In the case of three players, the equilibrium often has a coalition of the two weaker players against the strongest. The equilibrium coalition structure with four players mainly takes one of the two forms: a coalition of the three weaker players against the strongest or a coalition of the weakest and strongest players against a coalition of the remaining two. Our findings imply that the rivalry with the possibility of coalition formation in our model exhibits a pattern of two-sidedness and a balance of power. We further study the impact of binding agreements by coalition members on equilibrium coalition structures. Our analysis sheds some light on problems of temporary cooperation among individuals who are rivals by nature.     

Forms of representation for simple games: Sizes,conversions and equivalences

Simple games are cooperative games in which the benefit that a coalition may have is always binary, i.e., a coalition may either win or loose. This paper surveys different forms of representation of simple games, and those for some of their subfamilies like regular games and weighted games. We analyze the forms of representations that have been proposed in the literature based on different data structures for sets of sets. We provide bounds on the computational resources needed to transform a game from one form of representation to another one. This includes the study of the problem of enumerating the fundamental families of coalitions of a simple game. In particular we prove that several changes of representation that require exponential time can be solved with polynomial-delay and highlight some open problems.     

Weighted nucleoli

Cooperative games in characteristic function form (TU games) are considered. We allow for variable populations or carriers. Weighted nucleoli are defined via weighted excesses for coalitions. A solution satisfies the Null Player Out (NPO) property, if elimination of a null player does not affect the payoffs of the other players. For any single-valued and efficient solution, the NPO property implies the null player property. We show that a weighted nucleolus has the null player property if and only if the weights of multi-player coalitions are weakly decreasing with respect to coalition inclusion. Weighted nucleoli possessing the NPO-property can be characterized by means of a multiplicative formula for the weights of the multi-player coalitions and a restrictive condition on the weights of one-player coalitions. Received: March 1997/Final version: November 1998     

Self-enforcing coalitions with power accumulation

Agents endowed with power compete for a divisible resource by forming coalitions with other agents. The coalition with the greatest power wins the resource and divides it among its members. The agents’ power increases according to their share of the resource.We study two models of coalition formation where winning agents accumulate power and losing agents may participate in further coalition formation processes. An axiomatic approach is provided by focusing on variations of two main axioms: self-enforcement, which requires that no further deviation happens after a coalition has formed, and rationality, which requires that agents pick the coalition that gives them their highest payoff. For these alternative models, we determine the existence of stable coalitions that are self-enforcing and rational for two traditional sharing rules. The models presented in this paper illustrate how power accumulation, the sharing rule, and whether losing agents participate in future coalition formation processes, shape the way coalitions will be stable throughout time.     

A coalition formation value for games in partition function form

The coalition formation problem in an economy with externalities can be adequately modeled by using games in partition function form (PFF games), proposed by Thrall and Lucas. If we suppose that forming the grand coalition generates the largest total surplus, a central question is how to allocate the worth of the grand coalition to each player, i.e., how to find an adequate solution concept, taking into account the whole process of coalition formation. We propose in this paper the original concepts of scenario-value, process-value and coalition formation value, which represent the average contribution of players in a scenario (a particular sequence of coalitions within a given coalition formation process), in a process (a sequence of partitions of the society), and in the whole (all processes being taken into account), respectively. We give also two axiomatizations of our coalition formation value.     

The Owen value values friendship

This paper presents two new axiomatizations of the Owen value for games with coalition structures. Two associated games are defined and a consistency axiom is required. The construction of the associated games presupposes that coalitions behave in an aggressive manner towards players who are not members of the same unions and in a friendly manner towards players that do belong to their unions. The consistency axiom necessitates the definition of only one associated game which is not a reduced game. Received: February 1999/Revised version: January 2000     

图上合作博弈和图的边密度

1977年, Myerson建立了以图作为合作结构的可转移效用博弈模型(也称图博弈), 并提出了一个分配规则, 也即"Myerson 值", 它推广了著名的Shapley值. 该模型假定每个连通集合(通过边直接或间接内部相连的参与者集合)才能形成可行的合作联盟而取得相应的收益, 而不考虑连通集合的具体结构. 引入图的局部边密度来度量每个连通集合中各成员之间联系的紧密程度, 即以该连通集合的导出子图的边密度来作为他们的收益系数, 并由此定义了具有边密度的Myerson值, 证明了具有边密度的Myerson值可以由"边密度分支有效性"和"公平性"来唯一确定.     

The collective value: a new solution for games with coalition structures

In this study, we provide a new solution for cooperative games with coalition structures. The collective value of a player is defined as the sum of the equal division of the pure surplus obtained by his coalition from the coalitional bargaining and of his Shapley value for the internal coalition. The weighted Shapley value applied to a game played by coalitions with coalition-size weights is assigned to each coalition, reflecting the size asymmetries among coalitions. We show that the collective value matches exogenous interpretations of coalition structures and provide an axiomatic foundation of this value. A noncooperative mechanism that implements the collective value is also presented.