IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1901.01485.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Conditions for the uniqueness of the Gately point for cooperative games

Author

Listed:
  • Jochen Staudacher
  • Johannes Anwander

Abstract

We are studying the Gately point, an established solution concept for cooperative games. We point out that there are superadditive games for which the Gately point is not unique, i.e. in general the concept is rather set-valued than an actual point. We derive conditions under which the Gately point is guaranteed to be a unique imputation and provide a geometric interpretation. The Gately point can be understood as the intersection of a line defined by two points with the set of imputations. Our uniqueness conditions guarantee that these two points do not coincide. We provide demonstrative interpretations for negative propensities to disrupt. We briefly show that our uniqueness conditions for the Gately point include quasibalanced games and discuss the relation of the Gately point to the $\tau$-value in this context. Finally, we point out relations to cost games and the ACA method and end upon a few remarks on the implementation of the Gately point and an upcoming software package for cooperative game theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Jochen Staudacher & Johannes Anwander, 2019. "Conditions for the uniqueness of the Gately point for cooperative games," Papers 1901.01485, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1901.01485
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.01485
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gately, Dermot, 1974. "Sharing the Gains from Regional Cooperation: A Game Theoretic Application to Planning Investment in Electric Power," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 15(1), pages 195-208, February.
    2. Rodica Branzei & Dinko Dimitrov & Stef Tijs, 2008. "Models in Cooperative Game Theory," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-3-540-77954-4, June.
    3. R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    4. Chakravarty,Satya R. & Mitra,Manipushpak & Sarkar,Palash, 2015. "A Course on Cooperative Game Theory," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107058798.
    5. Otten, G.J.M., 1993. "Characterizations of a Game Theoretical Cost Allocation Method," Discussion Paper 1993-37, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    6. Sandler, Todd & Tschirhart, John T, 1980. "The Economic Theory of Clubs: An Evaluative Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1481-1521, December.
    7. Otten, G.J.M., 1993. "Characterizations of a Game Theoretical Cost Allocation Method," Other publications TiSEM 18a0262e-a6d3-4bd9-bdb0-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    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. Robert P. Gilles & Lina Mallozzi, 2022. "Gately Values of Cooperative Games," Papers 2208.10189, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    2. Robert P. Gilles & Lina Mallozzi, 2023. "Game theoretic foundations of the Gately power measure for directed networks," Papers 2308.02274, arXiv.org.
    3. Robert P. Gilles & Lina Mallozzi, 2023. "Game Theoretic Foundations of the Gately Power Measure for Directed Networks," Games, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Gilles, Robert P. & Mallozzi, Lina, 2022. "Generalised Gately Values of Cooperative Games," QBS Working Paper Series 2022/06, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's Business School.

    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. Ünsal Özdilek, 2020. "Land and building separation based on Shapley values," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Sexton, Richard J., 1991. "Game Theory: A Review With Applications To Vertical Control In Agricultural Markets," Working Papers 225865, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Smita Shandilya & Zdzislaw Szymanski & Shishir Kumar Shandilya & Ivan Izonin & Krishna Kant Singh, 2022. "Modeling and Comparative Analysis of Multi-Agent Cost Allocation Strategies Using Cooperative Game Theory for the Modern Electricity Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Stefano Moretti & Fioravante Patrone, 2008. "Transversality of the Shapley value," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 16(1), pages 1-41, July.
    5. Robert P. Gilles & Lina Mallozzi, 2022. "Gately Values of Cooperative Games," Papers 2208.10189, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    6. Rene van den Brink & Youngsub Chun & Yukihiko Funaki & Zhengxing Zou, 2021. "Balanced Externalities and the Proportional Allocation of Nonseparable Contributions," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-024/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Gilles, Robert P. & Mallozzi, Lina, 2022. "Generalised Gately Values of Cooperative Games," QBS Working Paper Series 2022/06, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's Business School.
    8. Stefan Engevall & Maud Göthe-Lundgren & Peter Värbrand, 2004. "The Heterogeneous Vehicle-Routing Game," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(1), pages 71-85, February.
    9. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    10. Ding, Zhanwen & Shi, Guiping, 2009. "Cooperation in a dynamical adjustment of duopoly game with incomplete information," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 989-993.
    11. Dávid Csercsik & László Á. Kóczy, 2017. "Efficiency and Stability in Electrical Power Transmission Networks: a Partition Function Form Approach," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1161-1184, December.
    12. Jhinyoung Shin & Rajdeep Singh, 2010. "Corporate Disclosures: Strategic Donation of Information," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 313-337, September.
    13. Mario Guajardo & Kurt Jörnsten & Mikael Rönnqvist, 2016. "Constructive and blocking power in collaborative transportation," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 38(1), pages 25-50, January.
    14. Sylvie Thoron, 2016. "Morality Beyond Social Preferences: Smithian Sympathy, Social Neuroscience and the Nature of Social Consciousness [La moralité au delà des préférences sociales. La sympathie Smithienne, les neurosc," Post-Print hal-01645043, HAL.
    15. Konrad, Kai A. & Rees, Ray, 2020. "Passports for sale: The political economy of conflict and cooperation in a meta-club," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    16. Lukáš Adam & Tomáš Kroupa, 2017. "The intermediate set and limiting superdifferential for coalitional games: between the core and the Weber set," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(4), pages 891-918, November.
    17. Nan Xia & S. Rajagopalan, 2009. "Standard vs. Custom Products: Variety, Lead Time, and Price Competition," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(5), pages 887-900, 09-10.
    18. Gerard Llobet & Javier Suarez, 2010. "Entrepreneurial Innovation, Patent Protection and Industry Dynamics," Working Papers wp2010_1001, CEMFI.
    19. Rene (J.R.) van den Brink & Osman Palanci & S. Zeynep Alparslan Gok, 2017. "Interval Solutions for Tu-games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-094/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Robert Scherf & Matthew Weinzierl, 2020. "Understanding Different Approaches to Benefit‐Based Taxation," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(2), pages 385-410, June.

    More about this item

    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:arx:papers:1901.01485. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.