Advertisement

International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 601–616 | Cite as

Absence-proofness: Group stability beyond the core

  • Emre DoğanEmail author
Article
  • 219 Downloads

Abstract

We introduce a new cooperative stability concept, absence-proofness (AP). Given a TU game \(\left( {N,v} \right) \), and a solution well defined for all subsocieties, a group of people \(S\subseteq N\) may benefit by partially seceding from cooperation. \(T\subseteq S\) stays out, and collects its stands alone benefits while \(S\backslash T\) receives its allocation specified by the solution at the reduced problem where only \(N\backslash T\) is present. We call a solution manipulable if \(S\) can improve upon its allocation in the original problem by such a maneuver, and solutions that are immune to such manipulations are called absence-proof. We show that population monotonicity (PM) implies AP, and AP implies separability. In minimum cost spanning tree problems, by replacing PM with AP, we propose a family of solutions that are easy to compute and more responsive than the well-known Folk solution to the asymmetries in the cost data, keeping all its fairness properties.

Keywords

Core Absence-proofness Population monotonicity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An extended version of this work is completed under the supervision of my PhD thesis advisor, Hervé Moulin. I am immensely indebted to him for all the inspiring discussions. I am grateful to Barış Esmerok, Uğur Özdemir, William Thomson, Vladimir Unkovski-Korica and three anonymous referees for their valuable comments, and also Javier Arín for the argument showing the nucleolus is separable on convex games. The previous version of this work is completed during my PhD studies at Rice University, and this version at National Research University Higher School of Economics. I thank both institutions for supporting my work.

References

  1. Arín J, Iñarra E (1998) A characterization of the nucleolus for convex games. Games Econ Behav 23(1):12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergantiños G, Lorenzo-Freire S (2008) A characterization of optimistic weighted shapley rules in minimum cost spanning tree problems. Econ Theory 35:523–538Google Scholar
  3. Bergantiños G, Vidal-Puga JJ (2007) A fair rule in minimum cost spanning tree problems. J Econ Theory 137(1):326–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergantiños G, Vidal-Puga JJ (2012) Characterization of monotonic rules in minimum cost spanning tree problems. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/39994/. Accessed 10 Jul 2012
  5. Bird CJ (1976) On cost allocation for a spanning tree: a game theoretic approach. Networks 6:335–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogomolnaia A, Moulin H (2010) Sharing a minimal cost spanning tree: Beyond the Folk solution. Games Econ Behav 69:238–248Google Scholar
  7. Brânzei R, Moretti S, Norde H, Tijs S (2004) The P-value for cost sharing in minimum cost spanning tree situations. Theory Decis 56:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doğan E (2014) Essays in cooperative stability. PhD dissertation. Department Economics, Rice University, Houston, TXGoogle Scholar
  9. Dutta B (1990) The egalitarian solution and reduced game properties in convex games. Int J Game Theory 19(2):153–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dutta B, Kar A (2004) Cost monotonicity, consistency, and minimum cost spanning tree games. Games Econ Behav 48:223–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutta B, Ray D (1989) A concept of egalitarianism under participation constraints. Econometrica 57(3):615–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feltkamp T, Tijs S, Muto S (1994) On the irreducible core and the equal remaining obligations rule of minimum cost spanning extension problems. Tilburg University, CentER DP, Tilburg 94106Google Scholar
  13. McAfee RP, McMillan J (1992) Bidding rings. Econ Rev Am 82(3):579–599Google Scholar
  14. Moulin H (1990) Cores and large cores of games when population varies. Int J Game Theory 19:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Norde H (2013) The degree and cost adjusted Folk solution for minimum cost spanning tree games. Mimeo, CentER DP 2013–039, TilburgGoogle Scholar
  16. Norde H, Moretti S, Tijs S (2001) Minimum cost spanning tree games and population monotonic allocation schemes. Eur J Oper Res 154(1):84–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prim RC (1957) Shortest connection network and some generalization. Bell Syst Tech J 36:1389–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shapley LS (1953) A value for n-person games. In: Tucker A, Kuhn H (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, vol II. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 307–317Google Scholar
  19. Sprumont Y (1990) Population monotonic allocation schemes for cooperative games with transferable utility. Games Econ Behav 2(4):378–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sönmez T (1993) Population-monotonicity of the nucleolus on a class of public good problems. University of Rochester, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  21. Tijs S, Branzei R, Moretti S, Norde H (2006) Obligation rules for minimum cost spanning tree situations and their monotonicity properties. Eur J Oper Res 175:121–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Trudeau C (2012) A new stable and more responsive cost sharing solution for minimum cost spanning tree problems. Games Econ Behav 75:402–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Laboratory of Decision Choice and AnalysisNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations