IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v216y2012i3p638-646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose deletion does not affect your payoff? The difference between the Shapley value, the egalitarian value, the solidarity value, and the Banzhaf value

Author

Listed:
  • Kamijo, Yoshio
  • Kongo, Takumi

Abstract

This study provides a unified axiomatic characterization method of one-point solutions for cooperative games with transferable utilities. Any one-point solution that satisfies efficiency, the balanced cycle contributions property (BCC), and the axioms related to invariance under a player deletion is characterized as a corollary of our general result. BCC is a weaker requirement than the well-known balanced contributions property. Any one-point solution that is both symmetric and linear satisfies BCC. The invariance axioms necessitate that the deletion of a specific player from games does not affect the other players’ payoffs, and this deletion is different with respect to solutions. As corollaries of the above characterization result, we are able to characterize the well-known one-point solutions, the Shapley, egalitarian, and solidarity values, in a unified manner. We also studied characterizations of an inefficient one-point solution, the Banzhaf value that is a well-known alternative to the Shapley value.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamijo, Yoshio & Kongo, Takumi, 2012. "Whose deletion does not affect your payoff? The difference between the Shapley value, the egalitarian value, the solidarity value, and the Banzhaf value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(3), pages 638-646.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:216:y:2012:i:3:p:638-646
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.08.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221711007302
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lehrer, E, 1988. "An Axiomatization of the Banzhaf Value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 17(2), pages 89-99.
    2. Arin, J. & Feltkamp, V., 2012. "Coalitional games: Monotonicity and core," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(1), pages 208-213.
    3. Lorenzo-Freire, S. & Alonso-Meijide, J.M. & Casas-Mendez, B. & Fiestras-Janeiro, M.G., 2007. "Characterizations of the Deegan-Packel and Johnston power indices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 431-444, February.
    4. E. Algaba & J. M. Bilbao & R. van den Brink & A. Jiménez-Losada, 2004. "An axiomatization of the Banzhaf value for cooperative games on antimatroids," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 59(1), pages 147-166, February.
    5. Andrzej S. Nowak, 1997. "note: On an Axiomatization of the Banzhaf Value without the Additivity Axiom," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 26(1), pages 137-141.
    6. Gómez-Rúa, María & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2010. "The axiomatic approach to three values in games with coalition structure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 795-806, December.
    7. Kalai, Ehud, 1977. "Proportional Solutions to Bargaining Situations: Interpersonal Utility Comparisons," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 45(7), pages 1623-1630, October.
    8. Haller, Hans, 1994. "Collusion Properties of Values," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 23(3), pages 261-281.
    9. André Casajus, 2011. "Marginality, differential marginality, and the Banzhaf value," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 365-372, September.
    10. Hart, Sergiu & Mas-Colell, Andreu, 1989. "Potential, Value, and Consistency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 589-614, May.
    11. Yoshio Kamijo & Takumi Kongo, 2010. "Axiomatization of the Shapley value using the balanced cycle contributions property," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 39(4), pages 563-571, October.
    12. Emilio Calvo, 2008. "Random marginal and random removal values," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 37(4), pages 533-563, December.
    13. repec:spr:compst:v:59:y:2004:i:1:p:147-166 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. André Casajus, 2011. "Differential marginality, van den Brink fairness, and the Shapley value," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(2), pages 163-174, August.
    15. van den Brink, Rene, 2007. "Null or nullifying players: The difference between the Shapley value and equal division solutions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 767-775, September.
    16. Kalai, Ehud & Samet, Dov, 1985. "Monotonic Solutions to General Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(2), pages 307-327, March.
    17. Andrzej S. Nowak & Tadeusz Radzik, 2000. "note: An alternative characterization of the weighted Banzhaf value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(1), pages 127-132.
    18. Sanchez S., Francisco, 1997. "Balanced Contributions Axiom in the Solution of Cooperative Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 161-168, August.
    19. René Brink & Yukihiko Funaki, 2009. "Axiomatizations of a Class of Equal Surplus Sharing Solutions for TU-Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 303-340, September.
    20. Tijs, Stef & Borm, Peter & Lohmann, Edwin & Quant, Marieke, 2011. "An average lexicographic value for cooperative games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 210-220, August.
    21. Feltkamp, Vincent, 1995. "Alternative Axiomatic Characterizations of the Shapley and Banzhaf Values," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 24(2), pages 179-186.
    22. Theo Driessen, 2010. "Associated consistency and values for TU games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 39(3), pages 467-482, July.
    23. Nowak, Andrzej S & Radzik, Tadeusz, 1994. "A Solidarity Value for n-Person Transferable Utility Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 23(1), pages 43-48.
    24. Ruiz, Luis M. & Valenciano, Federico & Zarzuelo, Jose M., 1998. "The Family of Least Square Values for Transferable Utility Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 109-130, July.
    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. Casajus, André & Huettner, Frank, 2014. "On a class of solidarity values," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 583-591.
    2. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "A Class of Solidarity Allocation Rules for TU-games," Working Papers 2015-03, CRESE.
    3. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "Axioms of invariance for TU-games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(4), pages 891-902, November.
    4. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2017. "Axiomatization and implementation of a class of solidarity values for TU-games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 61-94, June.
    5. Casajus, André & Huettner, Frank, 2014. "Null, nullifying, or dummifying players: The difference between the Shapley value, the equal division value, and the equal surplus division value," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 167-169.
    6. van den Brink, René & González-Arangüena, Enrique & Manuel, Conrado & del Pozo, Mónica, 2014. "Order monotonic solutions for generalized characteristic functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(3), pages 786-796.
    7. Calleja, Pere & Llerena Garrés, Francesc, 2016. "Consistency distinguishes the (weighted) Shapley value, the (weighted) surplus division value and the prenucleolus," Working Papers 2072/266577, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    8. Béal, Sylvain & Ferrières, Sylvain & Rémila, Eric & Solal, Philippe, 2016. "Axiomatic characterizations under players nullification," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 47-57.
    9. Béal, Sylvain & Rémila, Eric & Solal, Philippe, 2015. "Preserving or removing special players: What keeps your payoff unchanged in TU-games?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 23-31.
    10. repec:kap:theord:v:83:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-017-9604-1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Koji Yokote, 2015. "Weak addition invariance and axiomatization of the weighted Shapley value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 44(2), pages 275-293, May.
    12. Yoshio Kamijo & Takumi Kongo, 2015. "Properties based on relative contributions for cooperative games with transferable utilities," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 78(1), pages 77-87, January.
    13. Lee, Joosung & Driessen, Theo S.H., 2012. "Sequentially two-leveled egalitarianism for TU games: Characterization and application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(3), pages 736-743.

    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:eee:ejores:v:216:y:2012:i:3:p:638-646. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.