IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20150021.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparable Characterizations of Four Solutions for Permission Tree Games

Author

Listed:
  • René van den Brink

    (VU University Amsterdam)

  • Chris Dietz

    (VU University Amsterdam)

  • Gerard van der Laan

    (VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Genjiu Xu

    (Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, P.R. China)

Abstract

There is an extensive literature that studies situations of restricted cooperation in cooperative games. Myerson (1979) introduced communication graph games, where players can only cooperate if they are connected in an undirected graph representing the communication possibilities. The Myerson value is obtained by taking the Shapley value of the corresponding restricted game. For cycle-free connected graphs, Demange (2004) introduced for each player the corresponding hierarchical outcome, being the marginal contribution vector for a particular permutation of the player set induced by the graph. Gilles, Owen and van den Brink (1992) introduced games with a (hierarchical) permission structure modeled by a directed graph on the set of players. In the conjunctive (disjunctive) approach, a coalition is said to be feasible, if for every player in the coalition also all (at least one of) its predecessors (if any) belong(s) to the coalition. The conjunctive (disjunctive) permission value is obtained by taking the Shapley value of the associated conjunctive (disjunctive) restricted game. The two approaches coincide when the permission structure is a rooted tree. In this paper we consider games with a hierarchical permission structure given by a rooted tree and modify the Myerson value to a value for such games. We also consider for these games the hierarchical outcome with respect to the root of the tree (top player), along with a new solution that assigns all payoff to the unique top player in the hierarchy. Then comparable characterizations are given of these three solutions and the (conjunctive) permission value.

Suggested Citation

  • René van den Brink & Chris Dietz & Gerard van der Laan & Genjiu Xu, 2015. "Comparable Characterizations of Four Solutions for Permission Tree Games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-021/II, Tinbergen Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20150021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/15021.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. René Brink & P. Herings & Gerard Laan & A. Talman, 2015. "The Average Tree permission value for games with a permission tree," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(1), pages 99-123, January.
    2. Maniquet, Francois, 2003. "A characterization of the Shapley value in queueing problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 90-103, March.
    3. Gustavo Bergantiños & Silvia Lorenzo-Freire, 2008. "A characterization of optimistic weighted Shapley rules in minimum cost spanning tree problems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 35(3), pages 523-538, June.
    4. René Brink & Chris Dietz, 2014. "Games with a local permission structure: separation of authority and value generation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 343-361, March.
    5. Rodica Brânzei & Vito Fragnelli & Stef Tijs, 2002. "Tree-connected peer group situations and peer group games," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 55(1), pages 93-106, March.
    6. Gilles, Robert P & Owen, Guillermo & van den Brink, Rene, 1992. "Games with Permission Structures: The Conjunctive Approach," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 20(3), pages 277-293.
    7. Jean J. M. Derks & Hans H. Haller, 1999. "Null Players Out? Linear Values For Games With Variable Supports," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(03n04), pages 301-314.
    8. René Brink & Ilya Katsev & Gerard Laan, 2011. "Axiomatizations of two types of Shapley values for games on union closed systems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 47(1), pages 175-188, May.
    9. Roger B. Myerson, 1977. "Graphs and Cooperation in Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 225-229, August.
    10. Gabrielle Demange, 2004. "On Group Stability in Hierarchies and Networks," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(4), pages 754-778, August.
    11. Lei Li & Xueliang Li, 2011. "The covering values for acyclic digraph games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(4), pages 697-718, November.
    12. Ulrich Faigle & Michel Grabisch, 2012. "Values for Markovian coalition processes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 51(3), pages 505-538, November.
    13. Rene van den Brink & Ilya Katsev & Gerard van der Laan, 2011. "Games on Union Closed Systems," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-036/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    14. René Brink & Gerard Laan & Valeri Vasil’ev, 2007. "Component efficient solutions in line-graph games with applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(2), pages 349-364, November.
    15. Graham, Daniel A & Marshall, Robert C & Richard, Jean-Francois, 1990. "Differential Payments within a Bidder Coalition and the Shapley Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 493-510, June.
    16. Youngsub Chun, 2006. "No-envy in queueing problems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 29(1), pages 151-162, September.
    17. van den Brink, Rene & Gilles, Robert P., 1996. "Axiomatizations of the Conjunctive Permission Value for Games with Permission Structures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 113-126, January.
    18. Derks, Jean & Peters, Hans, 1993. "A Shapley Value for Games with Restricted Coalitions," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 21(4), pages 351-360.
    19. Faigle, U & Kern, W, 1992. "The Shapley Value for Cooperative Games under Precedence Constraints," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 21(3), pages 249-266.
    20. Bergantinos, Gustavo & Lorenzo-Freire, Silvia, 2008. ""Optimistic" weighted Shapley rules in minimum cost spanning tree problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 289-298, February.
    21. Thomas Liggett & Steven Lippman & Richard Rumelt, 2009. "The asymptotic shapley value for a simple market game," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 40(2), pages 333-338, August.
    22. Yair Tauman & Naoki Watanabe, 2007. "The Shapley Value of a Patent Licensing Game: the Asymptotic Equivalence to Non-cooperative Results," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 30(1), pages 135-149, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Subhadip Chakrabarti & Amandine Ghintran & Rajnish Kumar, 2019. "Assignment of heterogeneous agents in trees under the permission value," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 23(3), pages 155-188, December.
    2. Jens Gudmundsson & Jens Leth Hougaard & Chiu Yu Ko, 2022. "Sharing sequentially triggered losses: Automatic conflict resolution through smart contracts," IFRO Working Paper 2020/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Wenzhong Li & Genjiu Xu & Rong Zou & Dongshuang Hou, 2022. "The allocation of marginal surplus for cooperative games with transferable utility," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 51(2), pages 353-377, June.
    4. Rong Zou & Genjiu Xu & Wenzhong Li & Xunfeng Hu, 2020. "A coalitional compromised solution for cooperative games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(4), pages 735-758, December.
    5. David Lowing, 2023. "Allocation rules for multi-choice games with a permission tree structure," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 320(1), pages 261-291, January.
    6. Takayuki Oishi & Gerard van der Laan & René van den Brink, 2023. "Axiomatic analysis of liability problems with rooted-tree networks in tort law," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(1), pages 229-258, January.
    7. Takayuki Oishi & Gerard van der Laan & René van den Brink, 2018. "The Tort Law and the Nucleolus for Generalized Joint Liability Problems," Discussion Papers 37, Meisei University, School of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. René Brink & P. Herings & Gerard Laan & A. Talman, 2015. "The Average Tree permission value for games with a permission tree," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 58(1), pages 99-123, January.
    2. Encarnacion Algaba & Rene van den Brink, 2021. "Networks, Communication and Hierarchy: Applications to Cooperative Games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-019/IV, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. René Brink & Ilya Katsev & Gerard Laan, 2011. "Axiomatizations of two types of Shapley values for games on union closed systems," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 47(1), pages 175-188, May.
    4. René Brink, 2017. "Games with a permission structure - A survey on generalizations and applications," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 25(1), pages 1-33, April.
    5. Sylvain Béal & Sylvain Ferrières & Philippe Solal, 2022. "The priority value for cooperative games with a priority structure," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 51(2), pages 431-450, June.
    6. Hougaard, Jens Leth & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Tvede, Mich & Østerdal, Lars Peter, 2017. "Sharing the proceeds from a hierarchical venture," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 98-110.
    7. Rene van den Brink & Ilya Katsev & Gerard van der Laan, 2023. "Properties of Solutions for Games on Union-Closed Systems," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, February.
    8. M. Álvarez-Mozos & R. Brink & G. Laan & O. Tejada, 2017. "From hierarchies to levels: new solutions for games with hierarchical structure," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1089-1113, November.
    9. René van den Brink & Gerard van der Laan & Valeri Vasil'ev, 0000. "The Restricted Core for Totally Positive Games with Ordered Players," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-038/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    10. Mikel Álvarez-Mozos & René van den Brink & Gerard van der Laan & Oriol Tejada, 2015. "From Hierarchies to Levels: New Solutions for Games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-072/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. René Brink & Gerard Laan & Valeri Vasil’ev, 2014. "Constrained core solutions for totally positive games with ordered players," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 43(2), pages 351-368, May.
    12. Richard Baron & Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2011. "Average tree solutions and the distribution of Harsanyi dividends," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(2), pages 331-349, May.
    13. Michel Grabisch, 2013. "The core of games on ordered structures and graphs," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 204(1), pages 33-64, April.
    14. René Brink, 2012. "On hierarchies and communication," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(4), pages 721-735, October.
    15. René van den Brink, 2017. "Games with a Permission Structure: a survey on generalizations and applications," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-016/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Derks, Jean, 2018. "The Shapley value of conjunctive-restricted games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 146-151.
    17. René Brink & Chris Dietz, 2014. "Games with a local permission structure: separation of authority and value generation," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(3), pages 343-361, March.
    18. Zhengxing Zou & Qiang Zhang, 2018. "Harsanyi power solution for games with restricted cooperation," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 26-47, January.
    19. René Brink & Gerard Laan & Valeri Vasil’ev, 2007. "Component efficient solutions in line-graph games with applications," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(2), pages 349-364, November.
    20. Encarnacion Algaba & Rene van den Brink, 2019. "The Shapley Value and Games with Hierarchies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-064/II, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cooperative TU-game; rooted tree; Myerson value; hierarchical outcome; permission value; axiomatization;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20150021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.