IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joptap/v107y2000i2d10.1023_a1026476425031.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ordinal Games and Generalized Nash and Stackelberg Solutions

Author

Listed:
  • J. B. Cruz

    (Ohio State University)

  • M. A. Simaan

    (University of Pittsburgh)

Abstract

The traditional theory of cardinal games deals with problems where the players are able to assess the relative performance of their decisions (or controls) by evaluating a payoff (or utility function) that maps the decision space into the set of real numbers. In that theory, the objective of each player is to determine a decision that minimizes its payoff function taking into account the decisions of all other players. While that theory has been very useful in modeling simple problems in economics and engineering, it has not been able to address adequately problems in fields such as social and political sciences as well as a large segment of complex problems in economics and engineering. The main reason for this is the difficulty inherent in defining an adequate payoff function for each player in these types of problems. In this paper, we develop a theory of games where, instead of a payoff function, the players are able to rank-order their decision choices against choices by the other players. Such a rank-ordering could be the result of personal subjective preferences derived from qualitative analysis, as is the case in many social or political science problems. In many complex engineering problems, a heuristic knowledge-based rank ordering of control choices in a finite control space can be viewed as a first step in the process of modeling large complex enterprises for which a mathematical description is usually extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. In order to distinguish between these two types of games, we will refer to traditional payoff-based games as cardinal games and to these new types of rank ordering-based games as ordinal games. In the theory of ordinal games, rather than minimizing a payoff function, the objective of each player is to select a decision that has a certain rank (or degree of preference) taking into account the choices of all other players. In this paper, we will formulate a theory for ordinal games and develop solution concepts such as Nash and Stackelberg for these types of games. We also show that these solutions are general in nature and can be characterized, in terms of existence and uniqueness, with conditions that are more intuitive and much less restrictive than those of the traditional cardinal games. We will illustrate these concepts with numerous examples of deterministic matrix games. We feel that this new theory of ordinal games will be very useful to social and political scientists, economists, and engineers who deal with large complex systems that involve many human decision makers with often conflicting objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • J. B. Cruz & M. A. Simaan, 2000. "Ordinal Games and Generalized Nash and Stackelberg Solutions," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 107(2), pages 205-222, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joptap:v:107:y:2000:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1026476425031
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1026476425031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1026476425031
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1026476425031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, 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. Fabian R. Pieroth & Martin Bichler, 2022. "$\alpha$-Rank-Collections: Analyzing Expected Strategic Behavior with Uncertain Utilities," Papers 2211.10317, arXiv.org.
    2. M. Wei & J. B. Cruz, 2006. "Two Game Models for Cooperation with Implicit Noncooperation," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 505-527, September.
    3. J. M. Peterson & M. A. Simaan, 2008. "Probabilities of Pure Nash Equilibria in Matrix Games when the Payoff Entries of One Player Are Randomly Selected," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 137(2), pages 401-410, May.
    4. Naouel Yousfi-Halimi & Mohammed Said Radjef & Hachem Slimani, 2018. "Refinement of pure Pareto Nash equilibria in finite multicriteria games using preference relations," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 267(1), pages 607-628, August.
    5. D. Garagic & J.B. Cruz, 2003. "An Approach to Fuzzy Noncooperative Nash Games," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 118(3), pages 475-491, September.
    6. Jamal Ouenniche & Aristotelis Boukouras & Mohammad Rajabi, 2016. "An Ordinal Game Theory Approach to the Analysis and Selection of Partners in Public–Private Partnership Projects," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 169(1), pages 314-343, April.

    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. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    2. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    3. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    4. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    5. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    6. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    7. Luis Pérez-Domínguez & Luis Alberto Rodríguez-Picón & Alejandro Alvarado-Iniesta & David Luviano Cruz & Zeshui Xu, 2018. "MOORA under Pythagorean Fuzzy Set for Multiple Criteria Decision Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-10, April.
    8. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    9. Kumar B, Pradeep, 2021. "Changing Objectives of Firms and Managerial Preferences: A Review of Models in Microeconomics," MPRA Paper 106967, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 13 Mar 2021.
    10. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Anirban Mukhopadhyay & Sugata Hazra & Debasish Mitra & C. Hutton & Abhra Chanda & Sandip Mukherjee, 2016. "Characterizing the multi-risk with respect to plausible natural hazards in the Balasore coast, Odisha, India: a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) appraisal," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(3), pages 1495-1513, February.
    12. Chamoli, Sunil, 2015. "Hybrid FAHP (fuzzy analytical hierarchy process)-FTOPSIS (fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity of an ideal solution) approach for performance evaluation of the V down perforated baffle r," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 432-442.
    13. H. S. C. Perera & W. K. R. Costa, 2008. "Analytic Hierarchy Process for Selection of Erp Software for Manufacturing Companies," Vision, , vol. 12(4), pages 1-11, October.
    14. G. La Scalia & F.P. Marra & J. Rühl & R. Sciortino & T. Caruso, 2016. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodology to optimise olive agro-engineering processes based on geo-spatial technologies," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15.
    15. Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet E., 2014. "Dual criteria decisions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 101-113.
      • Andersen, Steffen & Harrison, Glenn W. & Lau, Morten Igel & Rutström, Elisabet, 2009. "Dual Criteria Decisions," Working Papers 02-2009, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
    16. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    17. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Majid Ebrahimi & Hamid Nejadsoleymani & Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar, 2019. "Land suitability map and ecological carrying capacity for the recognition of touristic zones in the Kalat region, Iran: a multi-criteria analysis based on AHP and GIS," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 697-718, October.
    19. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.
    20. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.

    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:spr:joptap:v:107:y:2000:i:2:d:10.1023_a:1026476425031. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.