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.     

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 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.     

The core of a game with a continuum of players and finite coalitions: The model and some results

In this paper we develop a new model of a cooperative game with a continuum of players. In our model, only finite coalitions - ones containing only finite numbers of players - are permitted to form. Outcomes of cooperative behavior are attainable by partitions of the players into finite coalitions: this is appropriate in view of our restrictions on coalition formation. Once feasible outcomes are properly defined, the core concept is standard - no permissible coalition can improve upon its outcome. We provide a sufficient condition for the nonemptiness of the core in the case where the players can be divided into a finite number of types. This result is applied to a market game and the nonemptiness of the core of the market game is stated under considerably weak conditions (but with finite types). In addition, it is illustrated that the framework applies to assignment games with a continuum of players.     

The aspiration approach to predicting coalition formation and payoff distribution in sidepayment games

This paper presents the aspiration approach to coalition formation and payoff distribution in games with sidepayments. The approach is based on the idea that players set prices for their participation within coalitions. The solution space which is appropriate for price-setting players is different from that of the usual solution concepts and is called the space of aspirations. Solution concepts defined on the space of aspirations correspond to notions of how players bargain over their prices. Once the players choose a vector of prices, the coalitions which can afford to pay these prices are the coalitions which are predicted to form in the game.     

The Myerson value for directed graph games

A directed graph game consists of a cooperative game with transferable utility and a digraph which describes limited cooperation and the dominance relation among the players. Under the assumption that only coalitions of strongly connected players are able to fully cooperate, we introduce the digraph-restricted game in which a non-strongly connected coalition can only realize the sum of the worths of its strong components. The Myerson value for directed graph games is defined as the Shapley value of the digraph-restricted game. We establish axiomatic characterizations of the Myerson value for directed graph games by strong component efficiency and either fairness or bi-fairness.     

Common pool resources with support

We examine the role of support for coalition stability in common pool resource games such as fisheries games. Some players may not want to join a coalition that jointly manages a resource. Still, because they benefit from spillovers, they may want to support the coalition with a transfer payment to set incentives for others to join. We find that the impact of support on equilibria of this game is limited to games with three or five players. Recommendations for Resource Managers

• Coalitions may be able to effectively manage common pool resources such as fisheries but such coalitions are often not stable due to free-rider incentives.
• We explore the impact of a transfer scheme that can improve this coalition stability which would lead to larger and more effective coalitions.
• Our results show that this new transfer scheme works only for cases where the number of players is small.

     

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     

Stability property of matchings is a natural solution concept in coalitional market games

Stability of matchings was proved to be a new cooperative equilibrium concept in Sotomayor (Dynamics and equilibrium: essays in honor to D. Gale, 1992). That paper introduces the innovation of treating as multi-dimensional the payoff of a player with a quota greater than one. This is done for the many-to-many matching model with additively separable utilities, for which the stability concept is defined. It is then proved, via linear programming, that the set of stable outcomes is nonempty and it may be strictly bigger than the set of dual solutions and strictly smaller than the core. The present paper defines a general concept of stability and shows that this concept is a natural solution concept, stronger than the core concept, for a much more general coalitional game than a matching game. Instead of mutual agreements inside partnerships, the players are allowed to make collective agreements inside coalitions of any size and to distribute his labor among them. A collective agreement determines the level of labor at which the coalition operates and the division, among its members, of the income generated by the coalition. An allocation specifies a set of collective agreements for each player.     

Power,Embedded Games,and Coalition Formation

Applications of game theory frequently presume but do not show that social structures contain games. This study shows that multiple games are embedded in strong power structures and that power is exercised because 1) the game of those low in power contains a dilemma whereas 2) the game of those high in power does not. As in previous analyses, we find those low in power play the Prisoner's Dilemma game. New to this analysis is the discovery that those high in power play the Privileged game, a game with no dilemma. Also new is the extension of the analysis to the design of coalitions. That extension shows that, when coalition formation succeeds, it eliminates the dilemma of those low in power by transforming their game from Prisoner's Dilemma to Privileged. By contrast, exactly the same coalition structure does not alter the game played by those high in power. Applying well-known game theoretic solution concepts, we predict that low power coalitions will countervail power, but that coalitions of those high in power will not affect power exercise. Experiments testing this theory investigate 1) coalitions of those high in power, 2) low power coalitions organized against multiple high power positions, and 3) opposed coalitions struggling for power against each other. Results strongly support the theory.     

微分对策中的联盟解

提出时间区间[t_0,∞)上的n人微分对策两阶段联盟解. 在第一阶段不能形成大联盟的假设是自然的,即源于这一思想. 在第一阶段以联盟作为局中人的对策中计算得到其纳什均衡,之后对每个联盟的收益按Shapley值进行分配. 一个n人微分减排模型的例子阐明了上述结果.     

How do coalitions get built? Evidence from an extensive form coalition game with and without communication

In the laboratory, we investigate a non-cooperative three-person coalition game with externalities and the opportunity to extend existing coalitions. One bargainer, the builder, can propose and build a coalition over two stages. We examine the hypothesis that both absolute and relative payoffs affect the coalition formation process (and outcome). We observe many inefficient two-person final coalitions, and that the distribution of outcomes is sensitive to the constellation of both absolute and relative payoffs. Relative payoffs appear to be applied more myopically than has been observed in bilateral sequential bargaining games or suggested by social preference models. We hypothesize that the prevalence of two-person coalitions stems from builder’s uncertainty about individual acceptance thresholds. In fact, allowing nonbinding communication among the bargainers increases the prevalence of efficient coalitions. The main implication is that efficient coalition building involves strategies for mitigating the strategic uncertainty inherent in building coalitions.     

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.     

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.     

An application of cooperative game among container terminals of one port

In this paper a two-stage game that involves three container terminals located in Karachi Port in Pakistan is discussed. In the first stage, the three terminals have to decide on whether to act as a singleton or to enter into a coalition with one or both of the other terminals. The decision at this stage should presumably be based on the predicted outcome for the second stage. The second stage is here modelled as a Bertrand game with one outside competitor, the coalition and the terminal in Karachi Port (if any) that has not joined the coalition. Furthermore, three partial and one grand coalition among the three terminals at Karachi Port are investigated. The concepts of “characteristic function” and “core” are used to analyse the stability of these coalitions and this revealed that one combination does not satisfy the superadditivity property of the characteristic function and can therefore be ruled out. The resulting payoffs (profits) of these coalitions are analysed on the basis of “core”. The best payoff for all players is in the case of a “grand coalition”. However, the real winner is the outsider (the terminal at the second port) which earns a better payoff without joining the coalition, and hence will play the role of the “orthogonal free-rider”.     

On the Convenience to Form Coalitions or Partnerships in Simple Games

A partnership in a cooperative game is a coalition that possesses an internal structure and, simultaneously, behaves as an individual member. Forming partnerships leads to a modification of the original game which differs from the quotient game that arises when one or more coalitions are actually formed. In this paper, the Shapley value is used to discuss the convenience to form either coalitions or partnerships. To this end, the difference between the additive Shapley value of the partnership in the partnership game and the Shapley alliance value of the coalition, and also between the corresponding value of the internal and external players, are analysed. Simple games are especially considered. Research partially supported by Grant BFM 2003-01314 of the Science and Technology Spanish Ministry and the European Regional Development Fund.     

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.     

Characterization of the core in games with restricted cooperation

Games with restricted cooperation describe situations in which the players are not completely free in forming coalitions. The restrictions in coalition formation can be attributed to economic, hierarchical, political or ethical reasons. In order to manage these situations, the model includes a collection of coalitions which determines the feasible agreements among the agents. The purpose of this paper is to extend the characterization of the core of a cooperative game, made by Peleg [International Journal of Game Theory 15 (1986) 187–200; Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, vol. I. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 397–412] to the context of games with restricted cooperation. In order to make the approach as general as possible, we will consider classes of games with restricted cooperation in which the collection of feasible coalitions has a determined structure, and we will impose conditions on that structure to generalize the Peleg’s axiomatization.     

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.