Membership for Core of LP Games and Other Games

  • Qizhi Fang
  • Shanfeng Zhu
  • Maocheng Cai
  • Xiaotie Deng
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2108)


Let Γ = (N, v) be a cooperative game with the player set N and characteristic function v: 2NR. An imputation of the game is in the core if no subset of players could gain advantage by splitting from the grand coalition of all players. It is well known that, for the linear production game, and the flow game, the core is always non-empty (and a solution in the core can be found in polynomial time). In this paper, we show that, given an imputation x, it is NP-complete to decide it is not a member of the core, in both games. The same also holds for Steiner tree game. In addition, for Steiner tree games, we prove that testing the total balacedness is NP-hard.

Key words

cooperative game core network flow linear programming Steiner tree NP-completeness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    I.J. Curiel (1988), Cooperative Game Theory and Applications. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nijmegen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    X. Deng, T. Ibaraki and H. Nagamochi (1999), Algorithmic aspects of the core of combinatorial optimization games. Mathematics of Operations Research 24, pp. 751–766.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    X. Deng, T. Ibaraki, H. Nagamochi and W. Zang (2000),Totally balanced combinatorial optimization games, Mathematical Programming 87, pp.441–452.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    X. Deng and C.H. Papadimitriou (1994), On the complexity of cooperative solution concepts. Mathematics of Operations Research 19, pp. 257–266.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U. Faigle, W. Kern, S.P. Fekete and W. Hochstättler (1997), On the complexity of testing membership in the core of min-cost spanning tree games. International Journal of Game Theory 26, pp. 361–366.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson (1979), Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.X. Goemans and M. Skutella (2000), Cooperative facility location games. SODA.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Granot and G. Huberman (1981), Minimum cost spanning tree games. Mathematical Programming 21, pp. 1–18.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    E. Kalai and E. Zemel (1982), Totally balanced games and games of flow. Mathematics of Operations Research 7, pp. 476–478.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    E. Kalai and E. Zemel (1982), Generalized network problems yielding totally balanced games. Operations Research 30, pp. 498–1008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Megiddo (1978), Computational complexity and the game theory approach to cost allocation for a tree. Mathematics of Operations Research 3, pp. 189–196.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Owen (1975), On the core of linear production games. Mathematical Programming 9, pp. 358–370.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    L.S. Shapley (1967), On balanced sets and cores. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 14, pp. 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qizhi Fang
    • 1
  • Shanfeng Zhu
    • 2
  • Maocheng Cai
    • 3
  • Xiaotie Deng
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Applied MathematicsQingdao Ocean UniversityQingdaoChina
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceCity University of Hong KongHong KongChina
  3. 3.Institute of Systems ScienceChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations