Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
144 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Optimistic and pessimistic approaches for cooperative games (2403.01442v2)

Published 3 Mar 2024 in econ.TH and cs.GT

Abstract: Cooperative game theory studies how to allocate the joint value generated by a set of players. These games are typically analyzed using the characteristic function form with transferable utility, which represents the value attainable by each coalition. In the presence of externalities, coalition values can be defined through various approaches, notably by trying to determine the best and worst-case scenarios. Typically, the optimistic and pessimistic perspectives offer valuable insights into strategic interactions. In many applications, these approaches correspond to the coalition either choosing first or choosing after the complement coalition. In a general framework in which the actions of a group affects the set of feasible actions for others, we explore this relationship and show that it always holds in the presence of negative externalities, but only partly with positive externalities. We then show that if choosing first/last corresponds to these extreme values, we also obtain a useful inclusion result: allocations that do not allocate more than the optimistic upper bounds also do not allocate less than the pessimistic lower bounds. Moreover, we show that when externalities are negative, it is always possible to guarantee the non-emptiness of these sets of allocations. Finally, we explore applications to illustrate how our findings provide new results and offer a means to derive results from the existing literature.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (36)
  1. Ambec, S. and L. Ehlers (2008), “Sharing a river among satiable agents.” Games and Economic Behavior, 64, 35–50.
  2. Ambec, S. and Y. Sprumont (2002), “Sharing a river.” Journal of Economic Theory, 107, 453–462.
  3. Atay, A. and C. Trudeau (2024), “Queueing games with an endogenous number of machines.” Games and Economic Behavior, 144, 104–125.
  4. Aubin, J.-P. (1981), “Cooperative fuzzy games.” Mathematics of Operations Research, 6, 1–13.
  5. Béal, S., A. Ghintran, E. Rémila, and P. Solal (2012), “The river sharing problem: a survey.” International Game Theory Review, 15, 1340016.
  6. Bergantiños, G. and J. Vidal-Puga (2007a), “A fair rule in minimum cost spanning tree problems.” Journal of Economic Theory, 137, 326–352.
  7. Bergantiños, G. and J. Vidal-Puga (2007b), “The optimistic TU game in minimum cost spanning tree problems.” International Journal of Game Theory, 36, 223–239.
  8. Bergantiños, G. and J. Vidal-Puga (2015), “Characterization of monotonic rules in minimum cost spanning tree problems.” International Journal of Game Theory, 44, 835–868.
  9. Bird, C. G. (1976), “On cost allocation for a spanning tree: a game theoretic approach.” Networks, 6, 335–350.
  10. Bondareva, O. (1963), “Certain applications of the methods of linear programming to the theory of cooperative games.” Problemy Kibernetiki (in Russian), 10, 119–139.
  11. Chun, Y. (2006), “A pessimistic approach to the queueing problem.” Mathematical Social Sciences, 51, 171–181.
  12. Curiel, I. and S. Tijs (1991), “Minimarg and maximarg operators.” Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 71, 277–287.
  13. de Frutos, M. A. (1998), “Decreasing serial cost sharing under economies of scale.” Journal of Economic Theory, 79, 245–275.
  14. Feltkamp, V., S. Tijs, and S. Muto (1994), “On the irreducible core and the equal remaining obligations rule of minimum cost spanning extension problems.” Discussion Paper 1994-106, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  15. Fleurbaey, M. and F. Maniquet (1996), “Cooperative production: A comparison of welfare bounds.” Games and Economic Behavior, 17, 200–208.
  16. Gillies, D. B. (1959), “Solutions to general non-zero-sum games.” In Contributions to the Theory of Games IV (A. W. Tucker and R. D. Luce, eds.), 47–85, Princeton University Press.
  17. Granot, D. and F. Granot (1992), “On some network flow games.” Mathematics of Operations Research, 17, 792–841.
  18. Hsiao, C. R. and T.E.S. Raghavan (1993), “Shapley value for multichoice cooperative games, I.” Games and Economic Behavior, 5, 240–256.
  19. Kalai, E. and E. Zemel (1982a), “Generalized network problems yielding totally balanced games.” Operations Research, 30, 998–1008.
  20. Kalai, E. and E. Zemel (1982b), “Totally balanced games and games of flow.” Mathematics of Operations Research, 7, 476–478.
  21. Khmelnitskaya, A. (2010), “Values for rooted-tree and sink-tree digraph games and sharing a river.” Theory and Decision, 69, 657–669.
  22. Laurent-Lucchetti, J. and J. Leroux (2010), “Lindahl prices solve the NIMBY problem.” Economics Bulletin, 30, 2457–2463.
  23. Laurent-Lucchetti, J. and J. Leroux (2011), “Choosing and sharing.” Games and Economic Behavior, 73, 296–300.
  24. Littlechild, S. C. and G. Owen (1973), “A simple expression for the Shapley value in a special case.” Management Science, 20, 370–372.
  25. Maniquet, F. (2003), “A characterization of the shapley value in queueing problems.” Journal of Economic Theory, 109, 90–103.
  26. Moulin, H. (1990), “Uniform externalities: Two axioms for fair allocation.” Journal of Public Economics, 43, 305–326.
  27. Moulin, H. (1996), “Cost sharing under increasing returns: a comparison of simple mechanisms.” Games and Economic Behavior, 13, 225–251.
  28. Moulin, H. and S. Shenker (1992), “Serial cost sharing.” Econometrica, 60, 1009–1037.
  29. Oishi, T., M. Nakayama, H. Toru, and Y. Funaki (2016), “Duality and anti-duality in TU games applied to solutions, axioms, and axiomatizations.” Journal of Mathematical Economics, 63, 44–53.
  30. O’Neill, B. (1982), “A problem of rights arbitration from the talmud.” Mathematical Social Sciences, 2, 345–371.
  31. Roemer, J. and J. Silvestre (1993), “The proportional solution for economies with both private and public ownership.” Journal of Economic Theory, 59, 426–444.
  32. Shapley, L. S. (1953), “A value for n-person games.” In Contributions to the Theory of Games II (Kuhn. H. W. and A. W. Tucker, eds.), 307–317, Princeton University Press.
  33. Shapley, L. S. (1967), “On balanced sets and cores.” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 14, 453–460.
  34. Shapley, L. S. (1971), “Cores of convex games.” International Journal of Game Theory, 1, 11–26.
  35. Trudeau, C. and E. C. Rosenthal (2023), “The pipeline externalities game.” Mimeo.
  36. Van Essen, M. and J. Wooders (2023), “Dual auctions for assigning winners and compensating losers.” Economic Theory, 76, 1069–1114.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com