Abstract
We present a new characterization of the position value, one of the most prominent allocation rules for communication situations (graph-games or games with restricted communication). This characterization includes the PL-marginality property, an extension for communications situations of the classic marginality for TU-games, as well as component efficiency and balanced link contributions for necessary players.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The study of cooperative games (TU-games) in which a graph imposes some restrictions on the cooperation of the players, the so-called communication situations, graph-games or games with restricted communication, was introduced by (Myerson 1977, 1980). He modified the original game to the graph-restricted game using the graph. Then, he proposed the Shapley value (Shapley 1953) as a point solution for these situations. First, he characterized the value in terms of component efficiency and fairness (Myerson 1977). After that, he used the component efficiency and balanced contributions to obtain another characterization (Myerson 1980).
In his Ph.D. thesis (in Dutch), Meessen (1988) introduced—also for communication situations—the link game and the position value. The link game is a TU-game in which the players are the links of the graph and the value of each subgraph (coalition of links) coincides with the worth of the grand coalition in the Myerson (sub)graph-restricted game. The position value is calculated, for each player, as half of the sum of the Shapley value in the link game of the links he is involved in.
These concepts were later popularized by Borm et al. (1992). Slikker (2005) gave the first characterization of the position value for general communication situations. van den Brink et al. (2011) gave another characterization (as a corollary from a more general result regarding Harsanyi power solution). This is generalized for union stable systems in Algaba et al. (2015). The position value has received a lot of attention from game theorists. Algaba et al. (2000) defined the position value for union stable systems, Casajus (2007) proved that the position value is, in some sense, the Myerson value, Gómez et al. (2004) introduced a unified approach for the Myerson and the position values, Kongo (2010) established that the difference between the position value and the Myerson value is attributable to the existence of coalition structures, Ghintran et al. (2012) extended it to the probabilistic communication situations, Ghintran (2010) defined a weighted position value, Xianghui et al. (2017) defined the position value for communication situations with fuzzy coalitions, Fernández et al. (2018) introduced the cg-position value for games on fuzzy communication structures, Zhang et al. (2019) and Shan et al. (2020) characterized the position value for hypergraph communications situations, and Borkotokey et al. (2020) characterized it (and also the Myerson value) for the subclass of probabilistic network games in multilinear form.
Marginalism is a principle in economics according to which the value is determined by the additional utility that an extra unit of a good provides. The propagation of this concept in economics is commonly referred to as the Marginalist Revolution, establishing the difference between classical and modern economics. Marginalism plays a major role in the Shapley value, since it is calculated as a linear combination of the player’s marginal contributions to the different coalitions. Young (1985) brilliantly introduced the marginality property.Footnote 1 This property states that if the marginal contributions of a player in two different games coincide, the value of that player should be equal in both games. After this work, many other contributions are devoted to analyzing the relation between the Shapley value and the marginality property. See, for example, de Clippel and Serrano (2008), Skibski et al. (2013), and Huettner and Casajus (2019).
All in all, the Myerson value and the position value can be thought of as Shapley values of certain particular types of games. Therefore, it makes sense to ask whether the property of marginality holds for them. The answer is negative in both cases. Then, the issue is to explore whether certain variations of the classic property of marginality can serve to characterize these values. These variations arise precisely from ideas related to centrality.
Gómez et al. (2003) and González-Arangüena et al. (2017) additively decomposed the Myerson value into the WG-Myerson value that measures the productivity of the player via the characteristic function (for symmetric games, the communication centrality), and the BG-Myerson value that evaluates the ability of the player to intermediate among others (betweenness centrality). Manuel et al. (2020) introduced different types of marginal contributions for communication situations as well as the corresponding marginality properties. When the cooperation in a game is restricted by means of a graph, in addition to the classic marginal contribution of a player to a coalition, it is possible to consider that a player can contribute to a coalition by lending it his links to increase the connectedness, but without joining himself (L-marginal contribution), and also the possibility of joining with his relationships (PL-marginal contributions). Marginality (respectively L-marginality and PL-marginality) states that if player’s marginal contributions (respectively, L-marginal and PL-marginal contributions) are the same in two communication situations that differ in the characteristic function, ceteris paribus, the outcome will also be the same in both of them.
In this way, the authors prove that the Myerson value, the WG-Myerson value, and the BG-Myerson value can be characterized by using, respectively, PL-marginality, marginality, and L-marginality, as well as other properties. Some of these properties can be considered as part of a recent literature (see Yokote and Kongo (2017), and Navarro (2019)) that consists of weakening well-known axioms. Other variants of the marginality axioms can be found in (Casajus 2011a, b) and Casajus and Yokote (2017).
In this paper, we explore the extent to which the position value can be characterized from (one of the previous) marginality properties. Then, the aim of this article is twofold. On the one hand, we wish to relate and characterize the position value with the marginality properties. On the other hand, to look for new parallel behaviors between the Myerson value and the position value. In this way, we prove that the position value can be characterized in terms of component efficiency, balanced link contributions for necessary players, and PL-marginality.
This characterization supports the use of the rule in applications in which the underlying game is changing, whereas the network is fixed. We can find examples in cost allocation problems in a network or when the allocation should be updated as the value changes. For example, the distribution of the maintenance costs of a road network between towns fluctuates over time, but those towns that have the same PL-marginal contributions over time should always bear the same costs.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. A section of preliminaries is placed after this introduction. In Section 3, we include the new characterization of the position value, and in Section 4, we prove the independence of the used axioms. Section 5 is devoted to present an additive decomposition of the position value in a parallel manner to that existing for the Myerson value. The paper ends with some final remarks, an appendix with the proof of the main result and the references.
2 Preliminaries
A TU-game or a cooperative n-person game is a pair (N, v), where \(N=\{1,\dots ,n\}\) denotes the set of players and v is a real function defined on \(2^N=\{S | S\subseteq N\}\), the family of all subsets (coalitions) of N. For each coalition S, v(S) is the outcome that his \(s=|S|\) members can obtain if they decide to cooperate. It is assumed that \(v(\emptyset )=0.\)
The set of all TU-games with N fixed is a vector space, \(G^N\), whose dimension is \(2^n-1\). Given \(\emptyset \ne S\subseteq N\), the game \((N,u_S)\) with characteristic function given by
is known as the unanimity game of S. The family \(\{(N,u_S)_{\emptyset \ne S\subseteq N}\}\) is a basis of \(G^N\). As a consequence, given \((N,v)\in G^N\),
The coordinates \(\{\Delta _v(S)\}_{\emptyset \ne S\subseteq N}\) are known as Harsanyi dividends (Harsanyi 1959). We can obtain the dividend of each coalition, \(\emptyset \ne S\subseteq N\), using the following expression:
Consequently, the value of each coalition, \(\emptyset \ne S\subseteq N\), can be obtained from the dividends of its subcoalitions as
(N, v) is a zero-normalized game if \(v(\{i\})=0\) for all \(i\in N\). Given a game (N, v), we will denote \((N,\hat{v})\) the zero-normalized game with characteristic function given by \(\hat{v}(S)=v(S)-\sum _{i\in S}v(\{i\}).\) \(G_0^N\) is the subspace of \(G^N\) consisting of all the zero-normalized games.
The game (N, v) is symmetric if \(v(S)=v(T)\) whenever \(s=t\).
Given (N, v), \(i\in N\) is: a) a null player if \(v(S\cup \{i\})-v(S)=0\) for all \(S\subseteq N\setminus \{i\}\), b) a necessary player (van den Brink and Gilles 1996) if \(v(S)=0\) for all \(S\subseteq N\setminus \{i\}\).
An allocation rule for TU-games is a function \(\psi\) defined on \(G^N\) that assigns to every \((N,v)\in G^N\) a vector \(\psi (N,v)\in {\mathbb {R}}^n\) whose ith component represents the payoff to the player i in the game (N, v).
The most prominent allocation rule for TU-games was introduced by Shapley (1953). The Shapley value assigns to every player the following linear combination of his marginal contributions to different coalitions:
and it can be alternatively obtained from the Harsanyi dividends as:
A graph is a pair \((N,\gamma )\), where \(N=\{1,2,\dots ,n\}\) is the set of nodes and \(\gamma\) a subset of \(\gamma _N=\{\{i,j\}\; |\; i,j\in N, i\ne j\}\). Each link \(\{i,j\}\in \gamma\) represents the possibility of a direct relationship between i and j. We will denote by \(\Gamma ^N\) the family of all graphs with node set N.
Two nodes i and j are directly connected in a graph \((N,\gamma )\), if \(\{i,j\}\in \gamma\); and they are connected if there exists a sequence of nodes (called intermediaries) \(i_1, i_2,\dots i_k\) with \(i_1=i\), \(i_k=j\) such that \(\{i_l,i_{l+1}\}\in \gamma\), for \(l=1,\dots , k-1\). A set \(S\subseteq N\), \(S\ne \emptyset\), is connected (internally connected) in \(\gamma\) if every pair of nodes in S can be connected using intermediaries in S. We will assume that singletons are connected sets. A connected component, C, in \((N,\gamma )\) is a maximally connected set, i.e., C is connected in \((N,\gamma )\) and \(C^ \prime \supset C\) is not connected. A graph \((N,\gamma )\) induces a partition \(N/\gamma\) of the set N into connected components. The restriction of the graph \((N,\gamma )\) to the set \(S\subseteq N\) is the graph \((S,\gamma _{|_S})\) with \(\gamma _{|_S}=\{\{i,j\}\in \gamma \; |\; i,j\in S\}\). \(S/\gamma\) will be the set of the connected components of S in \((S,\gamma _{|_S})\). For each \(\gamma ^\prime \subseteq \gamma\), \((N,\gamma ^\prime )\) is a subgraph of \((N,\gamma )\). Given a graph \((N,\gamma )\) and \(l\in \gamma\), \((N,\gamma \setminus \{l\})\) is the subgraph obtained when removing the link l, and \((N,\gamma _i)\) is the subgraph of the links incident on i, i.e., \(\gamma _i=\{l\in \gamma \; |\; i\in l\}\).
A communication situation is a triple \((N,v,\gamma )\), where (N, v) is a TU-game and \((N,\gamma )\) an undirected graph. \({\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N\) will denote the set of all communication situations with players-nodes set N, and \({\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}_0^N\) the subset of those communication situations in which the game is zero-normalized.
A map \(\psi :{\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^n\) is an allocation rule for communication situations. \(\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )\) represents the outcome according to \(\psi\) for player i in game (N, v) given the restrictions in the communication imposed by the graph \((N,\gamma )\).
Meessen (1988) and Borm et al. (1992) introduced a very relevant allocation rule for communication situations, the position value. Given \((N,v,\gamma ) \in {\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N_0\), they defined a new TU-game, the link game, \((\gamma ,r^v_{\gamma })\). In this game, the players are the links of the graph, and the characteristic function is given by \(r^v_{\gamma }(\eta )=\sum _{C\in N/\eta }v(C), \hbox { for each } \eta \subseteq \gamma .\) As \(r^v_{\gamma }(\emptyset )=\sum _{i=1}^nv(\{i\})\), it suffices that the game be zero-normalized for the requirement that \(r^v_{\gamma }(\emptyset )=0\) to be satisfied.
The position value of player i in \((N,v,\gamma )\in {\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N_0\), denoted \(\pi _i(N,v,\gamma )\), is defined as
Then, it assigns to each player in a communication situation half of the sum of the Shapley values (in the link game) of the links he is involved in.
An allocation rule \(\psi\) defined on \({\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N\) (or in \({\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N_0\) if sufficient):
-
i)
satisfies component efficiency (Myerson 1977) if for all \((N,v,\gamma ) \in {\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N\) and all \(C\in N/\gamma ,\;\; \sum _{i\in C}\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )=v(C)\);
-
ii)
verifies balanced link contributions (Slikker 2005) if given \((N,v,\gamma ) \in {\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N_0\) and \(i,j\in N,\) \(\sum _{l\in \gamma _j}[\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )-\psi _i(N,v,\gamma \setminus \{l\})]=\sum _{l\in \gamma _i}[\psi _j(N,v,\gamma )-\psi _j(N,v,\gamma \setminus \{l\})]\).
In this paper, we will use a weak version of this property in which the previous condition is only required for necessary players.Footnote 2
-
iii)
satisfies link anonymity (Borm et al. 1992), if for all \((N,v,\gamma ) \in {\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N_0\) link anonymous (i.e., a communication situation in which the link game is symmetric), there exists \(\lambda \in {\mathbb {R}}\), such that for all \(i \in N\), it holds that \(\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )=\lambda |\gamma _i|\).
-
iv)
satisfies the superfluous link property (Borm et al. 1992), if for all \((N,v,\gamma ) \in {\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N_0\) and every \(l \in \gamma\) superfluous link in \((N,v,\gamma )\) (i.e., a null player in the link game), then \(\psi (N,v,\gamma )=\psi (N,v,\gamma \setminus \{l\})\).
-
v)
verifies PL-marginality (Manuel et al. 2020) if given \((N,v,\gamma )\), \((N,w,\gamma )\in \mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N\) and \(i\in N\), such that \(r^{v}_\gamma (\eta \cup \delta )-r_\gamma ^{v}(\eta )=r_\gamma ^{w}(\eta \cup \delta )-r_\gamma ^{w}(\eta ) \hbox {, for all } \eta \subseteq \gamma \setminus \gamma _i, \delta \subseteq \gamma _i,\) then \(\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )=\psi _i(N,w,\gamma )\).
Borm et al. (1992) characterized the position value only on the domain consisting of communication situations with a fixed player set and a cycle-free graph. Then, the position value is the unique allocation rule in such a domain that satisfies component efficiency, additivity, the superfluous link property, and the link anonymity.
Slikker (2005) expressed the position value in terms of the link game dividends as, \(\pi _i(N,v,\gamma )=\sum _{\eta \subseteq \gamma }\frac{1}{2} \Delta _{r^v}(\eta )\frac{\vert \eta _i\vert }{\vert \eta \vert },\) and he also characterized this allocation rule using component efficiency and balanced link contributions.
Casajus (2007) characterized the position value in terms of the Myerson value (Myerson 1977, 1980) of the link-agent form, a modification of the original TU-game different from the graph-restricted game or the link game.
3 A new characterization of the position value
This section is devoted to characterizing the position value in terms of components efficiency, balanced link contributions for necessary players, and PL-marginality.
It is well known that the position value satisfies component efficiency and balanced link contributions for all players (Slikker 2005), and thus for necessary players.
To prove that it also satisfies PL-marginality, we will use the following lemma whose proof is straightforward. This lemma states that if the PL-marginal contributions of player i and his subset of links \(\delta\) to \(\eta \subseteq \gamma \setminus \gamma _i\) (Manuel et al. 2020) coincide for games (N, v) and (N, w), ceteris paribus, then the change in the PL-marginal contributions corresponding to \(\delta\) and \(\delta ^*\) of this player in both games also coincide. In other words, if the change in the value of the game does not affect the PL-marginal contributions, neither will it affect their variations.
Lemma 3.1
Suppose \((N,v,\gamma ),(N,w,\gamma )\in \mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\) and \(i\in N\). The following two statements are equivalent:
-
i)
\(r_{\gamma }^{v}(\eta \cup \delta )-r_{\gamma }^{v}(\eta )= r_{\gamma }^{w}(\eta \cup \delta )-r_{\gamma }^{w}(\eta )\), for all \(\eta \subseteq \gamma \setminus \gamma _i, \delta \subseteq \gamma _i\).
-
ii)
\(r_{\gamma }^{v}(\eta \cup \delta )-r_{\gamma }^{v}(\eta \cup \delta ^*)= r_{\gamma }^{w}(\eta \cup \delta )-r_{\gamma }^{w}(\eta \cup \delta ^*)\), for all \(\eta \subseteq \gamma \setminus \gamma _i, \delta , \delta ^*\subseteq \gamma _i\).
Proposition 3.1
The position value satisfies PL-marginality.Footnote 3
Proof
Consider \((N,v,\gamma )\), \((N,w,\gamma )\in \mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\) and \(i\in N\), such that \(r_{\gamma }^{v}(\eta \cup \delta )-r_{\gamma }^{v}(\eta )=r_{\gamma }^{w}(\eta \cup \delta )-r_{\gamma }^{w}(\eta )\), for all \(\eta \subseteq \gamma \setminus \gamma _i, \delta \subseteq \gamma _i\). By the Lemma 3.1, this is equivalent to
For each \(l\in \gamma _i\) and each \(\nu \subseteq \gamma \setminus \{l\}\), let us denote \(\nu _i=\nu \cap \gamma _i\).
Taking in (1), \(\eta =\nu \setminus \nu _i\), \(\delta =\nu _i \cup \{l\}\) and \(\delta ^*=\nu _i\subseteq \delta\), we have
As a direct consequence,
which completes the proof. \(\square\)
In the following proposition, we provide a characterization of the position value relaxing the balanced link contributions property in the one of Slikker (2005) but including the PL-marginality property. As mentioned in the introduction, this characterization supports the use of the rule in applications in which the game changes, ceteris paribus; e.g., adaptation of cost allocations in a network over time.
Proposition 3.2
The position value is the unique allocation rule on \(\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\) that satisfies efficiency in connected components, balanced link contributions for necessary players, and PL-marginality.
The proof of Proposition 3.2 can be found in the Appendix.
4 Independence of axioms
This section is devoted to proving that the axioms used in the previous characterization are independent.
-
(i)
Efficiency in connected components and PL-marginality do not imply balanced link contributions for necessary players.
The Myerson value satisfies efficiency in connected components and PL-marginality, but it does not satisfy balanced link contributions for necessary players.
-
(ii)
Efficiency in connected components and balanced link contributions for necessary players do not imply PL-marginality .
Given a communication situation \((N,v,\gamma )\in \mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\), \(i\in N\), and \(C_i^{N,\gamma }\) the connected component in \((N,\gamma )\) to which i belongs, let \((C_i^{N,\gamma })_n\) be the set of all necessary players in the game (N, v) that are in \(C_i^{N,\gamma }\) and \((C_i^{N,\gamma })_n^c\) its complementary in \(C_i^{N,\gamma }\). Let us consider the allocation rule, \(\psi\), that assigns to \(i\in N\)Footnote 4
$$\begin{aligned} \psi _i(N,v,\gamma )=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \pi _i(N,v,\gamma ), &{} \hbox { if } (C_i^{N,\gamma })_n\ne \emptyset \\ &{}\hbox { and } i\in (C_i^{N,\gamma })_n, \\ \\ \frac{v(C_i^{N,\gamma })-\sum _{j\in (C_i^{N,\gamma })_n} \pi _j(N,v,\gamma )}{\vert (C_i^{N,\gamma })_n^c\vert }, &{} \hbox { if } (C_i^{N,\gamma })_n^c\ne \emptyset \\ &{} \hbox { and }i\in (C_i^{N,\gamma })_n^c. \end{array}\right. \end{aligned}$$\(\psi\) satisfies efficiency in connected components and balanced link contributions for necessary players. However, it does not satisfy PL-marginality, because it does not coincide with the position value.
-
(iii)
Balanced link contributions for necessary players and PL-marginality do not imply efficiency in connected components. Consider the rule \(\psi = 0.5\pi\).
5 A decomposition of the position value
Walking on the steps of Neyman (1989), Gómez et al. (2003), Béal et al. (2016) and González-Arangüena et al. (2017), it is possible to decompose additively the position value into two values: the within groups position value (WG-position value) and the between groups position value (BG-position value).
The WG-position value of a player will represent the part of his position value obtained by his productivity in the characteristic function. For \((N,v,\gamma )\in \mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\) and \(i\in N\), it is defined as
with \(v_i(S)=v(S)-v(S\setminus \{i\})\), for \(S\subseteq N\).
The BG-position value of a player will be the part of his position value received by his intermediation in the connection of others. For \((N,v,\gamma )\in {\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}}^N_0\) and \(i\in N\), it is defined as
with \(v_{-i}(S)=v(S\setminus \{i\})\), for \(S\subseteq N\).
To illustrate these definitions, let us consider the following example.
Example 5.1
Let \((N,v,\gamma )\) be the communication situation with \(N=\{1,2,3\}\), v the characteristic function of the messages game given by
in which the value of a coalition is the number of messages that can be sent between his members. The graph is \(\gamma =\{\{1,2\},\{2,3\}\}\). A possible representation of this graph is given in Fig. 1.
Then, we have that
The characteristic function of the link game is
and the position value is
Moreover
and thus, \(\pi ^W(N,v,\gamma )=(\frac{3}{4},1,\frac{3}{4})\). As clearly \(\pi ^W+\pi ^B=\pi\), we have \(\pi ^B(N,v,\gamma )=(0,\frac{1}{2},0)\).
We can observe that player 2, which is fully connected with the other two, has WP-position value (productivity via characteristic function) equal to his Shapley value. Players 1 and 3 (which are not directly connected) spend \(\frac{1}{4}\) of their Shapley value rewarding player 2. He allows them to send messages to each other. As they are terminal nodes, they do not receive any intermediation fees. Then, the three units of the total value of the component (efficiency) can be decomposed in the productivity of the characteristic function preserved by the network (\(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{3}{4}+1\)) which we will call WP-efficiency and the intermediation cost (BP-efficiency).
The WG-position value can be characterized in terms of WP-efficiencyFootnote 5 in connected components, balanced link contributions for necessary players, and marginality.
The BG-position value can be characterized using BP-efficiencyFootnote 6 in connected components, balanced link contributions for null players, and L-marginality.
The proofs of these characterizations are rather mechanical, similar to the proofs in Manuel et al. (2020), and Proposition 3.2 of this paper.
6 Final remarks and conclusions
The following Table 1 contains a summary of the properties considered above (as well as other classics in the literature of the Myerson and position values) and their relationship with the different values. In this way, we can see which properties are (or are not) shared by different values. The symbol C is assigned to those properties that are used in a characterization of the corresponding value. We have used the results in this paper as well as the corresponding results in Manuel et al. (2020). Although some of them are not included in these papers, their proofs or counterexamples are straightforward, so it is left to the reader.
As a conclusion, a marginalist analysis of the position value allows to find additional parallelisms with the Myerson value. PL-marginality is a common property of the Myerson and the position value, and can be used to characterize them. Similarly, the marginality property is satisfied by the WG-position value and the WG-Myerson value, and both the BG-Myerson value and the BG-position value satisfy L-marginality, these properties being useful in the respective characterizations.
All these characterizations support the use of the respective rules when we need to adapt the distribution between individuals in a fixed network in economic situations in which the value changes over time.
Notes
In Navarro (2019), we can find interesting results relating fairness to necessary players and the equal treatment property.
We abuse the notation using \(\sum _{j\in \emptyset } \pi _j(N,v,\gamma )=0\).
A allocation rule \(\psi :\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^n\) satisfies WP-efficiency in connected components if given \((N,v,\gamma )\in \mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\) and \(C\in N/\gamma\), \(\sum _{i\in C}\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )=\sum _{\begin{array}{c} S\subseteq C \end{array}} \Delta _v(S)\beta _\gamma (S).\) As it can be seen, this efficiency is a linear combination of the dividends of the game in which the coefficients \(\beta _{\gamma }(S)\) are rather technical. They depend upon the relative degrees of nodes (of S) in the minimal connection graphs of the coalition S. Comparing these coefficients with the corresponding \(\alpha _{\gamma }(S)\) in Manuel et al. (2020), we can see \(\alpha _{\gamma }(S)\) depend on the proportion that nodes in S represent in the (set of nodes of them) minimal connection graphs of the coalition S. See Gómez et al. (2004) for details.
A allocation rule \(\psi :\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}^n\) satisfies BP-efficiency in connected components if given \((N,v,\gamma )\in \mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\) and \(C\in N/\gamma\), \(\sum _{i\in C}\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )=\sum _{\begin{array}{c} S\subseteq C \end{array}} \Delta _v(S)(1-\beta _\gamma (S)).\)
References
Algaba E, Bilbao J, Borm P, López JJ (2000) The position value for union stable systems. Math Methods Oper Res 52:221–236
Algaba E, Bilbao J, van den Brink R (2015) Harsanyi power solutions for games on union stable systems. Ann Oper Res 225:27–44
Béal S, Ferrières S, Remila E, Splal P (2016) Axiomatic characterizations under players nullification. Math Soc Sci 80:47–57
Borkotokey S, Chakrabarti S, Gilles RP, Gogoi L, Kumar R (2020) Probabilistic Network Values. QMS Research Paper 2020/08, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3692371
Borm P, Owen G, Tijs S (1992) On the position value for communication situations. SIAM J Discrete Math 5(3):305–322
van den Brink R, van der Laan G, Pruzhansky V (2011) Harsanyi power solution for graph restricted games. Int J Game Theory 40:87–110
van den Brink R, Gilles RP (1996) Axiomatizations of the conjunctive permission value for games with permission structures. Games Econ Behav 12:113–126
Casajus A (2007) The position value is the Myerson value, in a sense. Internat J Game Theory 36:47–55
Casajus A (2011) Differential marginality, van den Brink fairness and the Shapley value. Theor Decis 71:163–174
Casajus A (2011) Marginality, differential marginality and the Banzhaf value. Theor Decis 71:365–372
Casajus A, Yokote K (2017) Weak differential marginality and the Shapley value. J Econ Theory 176:274–284
Chun Y (1989) A new axiomatization of the Shapley value. Games Econ Behav 1:119–130
de Clippel G, Serrano R (2008) Marginal contributions and externalities in the value. Econometrica 76:1413–1436
Fernández JR, Gallego I, Jiménez-Losada A, Ordóñez M (2018) The cg-position value for games on fuzzy communication structures. Fuzzy Sets Syst 341:37–58
Ghintran A (2010) A weighted position value. Working Paper Series, 1008, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management
Ghintran A, González-Arangüena E, Manuel C (2012) A probabilistic position value. Ann Oper Res 201(1):183–196
Gómez D, González-Arangüena E, Manuel C, Owen G, del Pozo M, Tejada J (2003) Centrality and power in social networks: a game theoretic approach. Math Soc Sci 46:27–54
Gómez D, González-Arangüena E, Manuel C, Owen G, del Pozo M (2004) A unified approach to the Myerson value and the position value. Theor Decis 56:63–76
González-Arangüena E, Manuel C, Owen G, del Pozo M (2017) The within groups and the between groups Myerson values. Eur J Oper Res 257:586–600
Harsanyi JC (1959) A bargaining model for the cooperative n-person games. Contributions to the theory of Games IV. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 325–355
Huettner F, Casajus A (2019) Marginality, dividends, and the value in games with externalities. ESMT Berlin Working Paper No. 19-01. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3394800 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3394800
Kongo T (2010) Difference between the Position Value and the Myerson Value is Due to the Existence of Coalition Structures. Internat J Game Theory 39:669–675
Manuel C, Ortega E, del Pozo M (2020) Marginality and Myerson values. Eur J Oper Res 284:301–312
Meessen R (1988) Communication games (in Dutch) (Ph.D. dissertation), Department of Mathematics, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Myerson RB (1977) Graphs and cooperation in games. Math Oper Res 2:225–229
Myerson RB (1980) Conference structures and fair allocation rules. Internat J Game Theory 9:169–182
Navarro F (2019) Necessary players, Myerson fairness and the equal treatment of equals. Ann Oper Res 280:111–119
Neyman A (1989) Uniqueness of the Shapley value. Games Econom Behav 1:116–118
Ortega E (2021) Marginality, the Myerson value and the position value. (in Spanish) (Ph.D. dissertation), Department of Statistics and Data Science, Complutense University of Madrid, Spain
Pintér M (2015) Young’s axiomatization of the Shapley value: a new proof. Ann Oper Res 235:665–673
Shan E, Shi J, Lv W (2020) A note on the position value for hypergraph communication situations. Complexity and Approximation: In Memory of Ker-I Ko, 230–237. Springer, New York
Shapley LS (1953) A value for n-person games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (eds) Annals of mathematics studies, vol 28. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 307–317
Skibski O, Michalak T, Wooldridge M (2013) Marginality approach to Shapley value in games with externalities. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2311112 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2311112
Slikker M (2005) A characterization of the position value. Internat J Game Theory 33(4):505–514
Xianghui L, Hao S, Dongshuang H (2017) On the position value for communication situations with fuzzy coalition. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 33(1):113–124
Yokote K, Kongo T (2017) The balanced contributions property for symmetric players. Oper Res Lett 45:227–231
Young HP (1985) Monotonic solutions of cooperative games. Internat J Game Theory 14:65–72
Zhang G, Shan E, Qu S (2019) Characterizations of the position value for hypergraph communication situations. In: East Asia Game Theory International Conference (pp 27–42), Springer, Singapore
Acknowledgements
This research has been partially supported by the “Plan Nacional de I+D+i” of the Spanish Government under the project PID2020-116884GB-100. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers, the editor, and Guillermo Owen for their helpful comments, which have undoubtedly improved this work.
Funding
Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Proof of Proposition 3.2
It has already been proved that the position value satisfies PL-marginality. On the other hand, it is widely known that it verifies efficiency in connected components and balanced link contributions (Slikker 2005), and in particular, for necessary players.
Reciprocally, suppose \(\psi\) is an allocation rule in \(\mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\) satisfying these three properties. We will prove that \(\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )=\pi _i(N,v, \gamma )\) for all \((N,v,\gamma )\in \mathcal{CS}\mathcal{}^N_0\) and for all \(i\in N\).
Consider the graph-restricted game \((N,v^{\gamma })\). For all \(i\in N\), \(\delta \subseteq \gamma _i, \eta \subseteq \gamma \setminus \gamma _i\)
As a connected component, C, of a subgraph of \(\gamma\) is also connected in \(\gamma\), we have \(v^\gamma (C)=v(C)\), and therefore
As \(\psi\) and \(\pi\) satisfy PL-marginality
and therefore, it is sufficient to prove the result for \((N,v^\gamma ,\gamma )\).
The proof will use induction on \(d(N,v^\gamma ),\) the cardinality of \(\delta (N,v^{\gamma })=\{S\;|\; \Delta _{v^\gamma }(S)\ne 0\}.\)
Suppose \((N,v,\gamma )\) is such that \(d(N,v^{\gamma })=0\). Then, each \(i\in N\) is a necessary player in \(v^{\gamma }\). We will prove that, in this case, \(\psi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma )=\pi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma )\) by induction on \(\vert \gamma \vert\).
If \(\vert \gamma \vert =0\), then i is isolated in \((N,\gamma )\) and using component efficiency, \(\psi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma )=v^{\gamma }(\{i\})=0=\pi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma )\), which proves the result in this case.
By the induction hypothesis, let us assume that the result is proved for \(\gamma\) with \(\vert \gamma \vert \le r\hbox {, } r\ge 0\) and consider \(\gamma\), such that \(\vert \gamma \vert = r+1\).
Let \(C_i^{N,\gamma }\) be the connected component in \((N,\gamma )\) to which i belongs. If \(C_i^{N,\gamma }=\{i\}\), using again efficiency in connected components, and similarly to the previous case, \(\psi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma )=\pi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma )=0\). Otherwise, for all \(j\in C_i^{N,\gamma }\), using balanced link contributions for necessary players, we have
and, as \(\vert \gamma \setminus \{l\}\vert < r+1\) and \(\vert \gamma \setminus \{l'\}\vert < r+1\), using the induction hypothesis (on \(\vert \gamma \vert\) ) and that \(v^\gamma\) is the null game
Therefore
or
(let us observe that \(\vert \gamma _i\vert\) and \(\vert \gamma _j\vert\) are strictly positive).
Using efficiency in connected components
which implies \(c=0\) and \(\psi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma )=0=\pi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma )\), which completes the induction on \(\vert \gamma \vert\) and the result for \(d(N,v^\gamma )=0\).
Suppose now that the result is proved for communication situations \((N,v,\gamma )\), such that \(d(N,v^\gamma )\le k\), \(k\ge 0,\) and consider \((N,v,\gamma )\) with \(\delta (N,v^\gamma )=\{S_1,...,S_{k+1}\}\), and thus, \(d(N,v^\gamma )=k+1\). Then, \(v^{\gamma }=\sum _{m=1}^{k+1}\Delta _{v^\gamma }(S_m)u_{S_m}\). If \(i\notin \cap _{m=1}^{k+1}S_m\), i.e., if i is not a necessary player in \((N,v^{\gamma })\), let us define \((v^{\gamma })_i=\sum _{S_m:i\in S_m}\Delta _{v^\gamma }(S_m)u_{S_m}.\) For \(\delta \subseteq \gamma _i, \eta \subseteq \gamma \setminus \gamma _i\), let \(C_i^{N,\eta \cup \delta }\) and \(C_i^{N,\eta }\) be the connected components in \((N,\eta \cup \delta )\) and \((N,\eta )\), respectively, to which i belongs. Then
Taking into account that both \(\psi\) and \(\pi\) satisfy PL-marginality
As \(d(N,(v^{\gamma })_i)\le k\), using the induction hypothesis
and the result is proved for \(i\notin \cap _{m=1}^{k+1}S_m\).
To finish, suppose now that \(i\in \cap _{m=1}^{k+1}S_m\). Then, i is a necessary player in \((N,v^\gamma )\). Let \(C_i^{N,\gamma }\) be the connected component in \((N,\gamma )\) to which i belongs.
If \(C_i^{N.\gamma }=\{i\}\), using component efficiency, both rules coincide. On the other hand, if i is the unique necessary player of \((N,v^\gamma )\) in his component, using the fact that both rules are the same for non-necessary players—as it is shown before—and the component efficiency, both rules coincide.
Let, then, \(j\ne i\), \(j\in C_i^{N.\gamma }\) and j be a necessary player in \((N,v^\gamma )\).
We will prove that \(\pi _i(N,v,\gamma )=\psi _i(N,v,\gamma )\) by the induction hypothesis on \(\vert \gamma \vert\). If \(\vert \gamma \vert =1\), then \(C_i^{N.\gamma }=\{i,j\}\) and as \(\psi\) satisfies balanced link contributions for necessary players
In \(\gamma \setminus \{\{i,j\}\}\), i and j are isolated, and using efficiency in connected components, \(\psi _i(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma \setminus \{\{i,j\}\})=\psi _j(N,v^{\gamma },\gamma \setminus \{\{i,j\}\})=0.\)
Then, \(\psi\) assigns the same amount to i and j, \(\frac{v^{\gamma }(C_i^{N.\gamma })}{2}\), quantity that coincides with the allocation of \(\pi\) to both players, because \(\pi\) also satisfies balanced link contributions for necessary players and efficiency in connected components.
Suppose now that the result is true if \(\vert \gamma \vert \le r, r\ge 1\), and consider \(\vert \gamma \vert =r+1\). As \(\psi\) satisfies balanced link contributions for necessary players
and, as \(\vert \gamma \setminus \{l\}\vert =\vert \gamma \setminus \{ l'\}\vert \le r\), using the induction hypothesis
On the other hand, \(\pi\) satisfies balanced link contributions for necessary players
and then
or equivalently
Therefore
for all \(j\in C_i^{N.\gamma }\), j necessary player in \((N,v^\gamma )\) (let us note that \({\vert \gamma _i\vert }\ne 0\) and \({\vert \gamma _j\vert }\ne 0\)).
Using efficiency in connected components and that both rules coincide for non-necessary players
where \((C_i^{N,\gamma })_n\) is the set of all necessary players in \(C_i^{N,\gamma }\). Thus
Then, \(c=0\) and \(\psi _i(N,v^\gamma ,\gamma )=\pi _i(N,v^\gamma ,\gamma )\), which completes the induction for r and k, and thus, the result is proved. \(\square\)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Manuel, C., Ortega, E. & Pozo, M.d. Marginality and the position value. TOP 31, 459–474 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11750-022-00647-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11750-022-00647-z