IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Preserving or removing special players: what keeps your payoff unchanged in TU-games?

  • Sylvain Béal

    ()

    (CRESE, Université de Franche-Comté)

  • Eric Rémila

    ()

    (Gate Lyon Saint-Etienne, Université de Saint-etienne)

  • Philippe Solal

    ()

    (Gate Lyon Saint-Etienne, Université de Saint-etienne)

If a player is removed from a game, what keeps the payoff of the remaining players unchanged? Is it the removal of a special player or its presence among the remaining players? This article answers this question in a complement study to Kamijo and Kongo (2012). We introduce axioms of invariance from player deletion in presence of a special player. In particular, if the special player is a nullifying player (resp. dummifying player), then the equal division value (resp. equal surplus division value) is characterized by the associated axiom of invariance plus efficiency and balanced cycle contributions. There is no type of special player from such a combination of axioms that characterizes the Shapley value.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://crese.univ-fcomte.fr/WP-2013-09.pdf
File Function: First version, 2013
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by CRESE in its series Working Papers with number 2013-09.

as
in new window

Length: 16 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2013
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:crb:wpaper:2013-09
Contact details of provider: Postal: 45 D Avenue de l'observatoire, 25030 Besançon cedex
Phone: 03 81 66 65 80
Fax: 03 81 66 65 76
Web page: http://crese.univ-fcomte.fr/

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Casajus, André & Huettner, Frank, 2013. "Null players, solidarity, and the egalitarian Shapley values," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 58-61.
  2. Béal, Sylvain & Casajus, André & Huettner, Frank & Rémila, Eric & Solal, Philippe, 2014. "Solidarity within a fixed community," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(3), pages 440-443.
  3. 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.
  4. Yuan Ju & Peter Borm & Pieter Ruys, 2007. "The consensus value: a new solution concept for cooperative games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 685-703, June.
  5. Radzik, Tadeusz, 2012. "A new look at the role of players’ weights in the weighted Shapley value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 407-416.
  6. Casajus, André & Hüttner, Frank, 2012. "Nullifying vs. dummifying players or nullified vs. dummified players: The difference between the equal division value and the equal surplus division value," Working Papers 110, .
  7. Nowak, Andrzej S & Radzik, Tadeusz, 1994. "A Solidarity Value for n-Person Transferable Utility Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 43-48.
  8. Yoshio Kamijo & Takumi Kongo, 2010. "Axiomatization of the Shapley value using the balanced cycle contributions property," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 563-571, October.
  9. Rene van den Brink & Youngsub Chun & Yukihiko Funaki & Boram Park, 2012. "Consistency, Population Solidarity, and Egalitarian Solutions for TU-Games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 12-136/II, Tinbergen Institute.
  10. Youngsub Chun & Boram Park, 2012. "Population solidarity, population fair-ranking, and the egalitarian value," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 255-270, May.
  11. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:crb:wpaper:2013-09. 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: (Christian At)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.