Advertisement

International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 351–368 | Cite as

Constrained core solutions for totally positive games with ordered players

  • René van den BrinkEmail author
  • Gerard van der Laan
  • Valeri A. Vasil’ev
Article

Abstract

In many applications of cooperative game theory to economic allocation problems, such as river-, polluted river- and sequencing games, the game is totally positive (i.e., all dividends are nonnegative), and there is some ordering on the set of the players. A totally positive game has a nonempty core. In this paper we introduce constrained core solutions for totally positive games with ordered players which assign to every such a game a subset of the core. These solutions are based on the distribution of dividends taking into account the hierarchical ordering of the players. The Harsanyi constrained core of a totally positive game with ordered players is a subset of the core of the game and contains the Shapley value. For special orderings it coincides with the core or the Shapley value. The selectope constrained core is defined for acyclic orderings and yields a subset of the Harsanyi constrained core. We provide a characterization for both solutions.

Keywords

Totally positive TU-game Digraph Harsanyi dividends Core Shapley value Harsanyi set Selectope Polluted river games 

JEL Classification

C71 (Cooperative games) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been done while the third author was visiting the Tinbergen Institute, VU University Amsterdam, on NWO-Grant 047.017.017 within the framework of Dutch-Russian Cooperation. This author also appreciates financial support from the Russian Leading Scientific Schools Fund (Grant 4113.2008.6) and Russian Fund for Basic Research (Grant 13-06-00311). We thank two anonymous referees and the associate editor for their valuable comments.

References

  1. Ambec S, Sprumont Y (2002) Sharing a river. J Econ Theory 107:453–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brânzei R, Fragnelli V, Tijs S (2002) Tree connected line graph peer group situations and line graph peer group games. Math Method Oper Res 55:93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Curiel I, Pederzoli G, Tijs S (1989) Sequencing games. Eur J Oper Res 40:344–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Demange G (2004) On group stability in hierarchies and networks. J Political Econ 112:754–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Derks J, Haller H, Peters H (2000) The selectope for cooperative TU-games. Int J Game Theory 29:23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gillies DB (1953) Some theorems on \(n\)-person games. PhD Thesis, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilles RP, Owen G, van den Brink R (1992) Games with permission structures: the conjunctive approach. Int J Game Theory 20:277–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham DA, Marshall RC, Richard J-F (1990) Differential payments within a bidder coalition and the Shapley value. Am Econ Rev 80:493–510Google Scholar
  9. Hammer PL, Peled UN, Sorensen S (1977) Pseudo-Boolean functions and game theory. I. Core elements and Shapley value. Cah CERO 19:159–176Google Scholar
  10. Harsanyi JC (1959) A bargaining model for cooperative n-person games. In: Tucker AW, Luce RD (eds) Contributions to the theory of games IV. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 325–355Google Scholar
  11. Kalai E, Samet D (1987) On weighted Shapley values. Int J Game Theory 16:205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kilgour DM, Dinar A (1995) Are stable agreements for sharing international river water now possible? Policy Research Working Paper 1474. World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  13. Littlechild SC, Owen G (1973) A simple expression for the Shapley value in a special case. Manag Sci 20:370–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maniquet F (2003) A characterization of the Shapley value in queueing problems. J Econ Theory 109: 90–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Myerson RB (1977) Graphs and cooperation in games. Math Oper Res 2:225–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Napel S, Widgrén M (2001) Inferior players in simple games. Int J Game Theory 30:209–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ni D, Wang Y (2007) Sharing a polluted river. Game Econ Behav 60:176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shapley LS (1953) A value for N-person games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (eds) Contributions to the theory of games II. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  19. Smith W (1956) Various optimizers for single-stage production. Nav Res Logist Q 3:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van den Brink R, Gilles RP (1996) Axiomatizations of the conjunctive permission value for games with permission structures. Game Econ Behav 12:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van den Brink R, van der Laan G, Vasil’ev VA (2008) Extreme points of two polytopes associated with a digraph and applications to cooperative games. J Math Econ 44:1114–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van den Nouweland A, Borm P, van Golstein Brouwers W, Tijs S (1996) A game theoretic approach to problems in telecommunication. Manag Sci 42:294–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vasil’ev VA (1975) The Shapley value for cooperative games of bounded polynomial variation. Optim Vyp 17:5–27 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  24. Vasil’ev VA (1978) Support function of the core of a convex game. Optim Vyp 21:30–35 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  25. Vasil’ev VA (1981) On a class of imputations in cooperative games. Sov Math Dokl 23:53–57Google Scholar
  26. Vasil’ev VA, van der Laan G (2002) The Harsanyi set for cooperative TU-games. Siberian Adv Math 12:97–125Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • René van den Brink
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gerard van der Laan
    • 1
  • Valeri A. Vasil’ev
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Econometrics and Tinbergen InstituteVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Sobolev Institute of MathematicsNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations