IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mse/wpsorb/b06087.html

Values on regular games under Kirchhoff's laws

Author

Listed:

Abstract

In cooperative game theory, the Shapley value is a central notion defining a rational way to share the total worth of a game among players. In this paper, we address a general framework, namely regular set systems, where the set of feasible coalitions forms a poset where all maximal chains have the same length. We first show that previous definitions and axiomatizations of the Shaphey value proposed by Faigle and Kern and Bilbao and Edelman still work. our main contribution is then to propose a new axiomatization avoiding the hierarchical strength axiom of Faigle and Kern, and considering a new way to define the symmetry among players. Borrowing ideas from electric networks theory, we show that our symmetry axiom and the classical efficiency axiom correspond actually to the two Kirchhoff's laws in the resistor circuit associated to the Hasse diagram of feasible coalitions. We finally work out a weak form of the monotonicity axiom which is satisfied by the proposed value

Suggested Citation

  • Fabien Lange & Michel Grabisch, 2006. "Values on regular games under Kirchhoff's laws," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques b06087, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    • Handle: RePEc:mse:wpsorb:b06087
    DOI: 10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2009.07.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00130449
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2009.07.003
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2009.07.003?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pradeep Dubey & Abraham Neyman & Robert J. Weber, 1979. "Value Theory without Efficiency," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 513, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Michel Grabisch & Jean-Luc Marichal & Marc Roubens, 2000. "Equivalent Representations of Set Functions," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 157-178, May.
    3. Michel Grabisch & Fabien Lange, 2007. "Games on lattices, multichoice games and the shapley value: a new approach," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 65(1), pages 153-167, February.
    4. Hwang, Yan-An & Liao, Yu-Hsien, 2008. "Potential approach and characterizations of a Shapley value in multi-choice games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 321-335, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Roger B. Myerson, 1977. "Graphs and Cooperation in Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 225-229, August.
    7. Pradeep Dubey & Abraham Neyman & Robert James Weber, 1981. "Value Theory Without Efficiency," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 6(1), pages 122-128, February.
    8. René Brink & Gerard Laan & Vitaly Pruzhansky, 2011. "Harsanyi power solutions for graph-restricted games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 87-110, February.
    9. Pradeep Dubey & Robert J. Weber, 1977. "Probabilistic Values for Games," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 471, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. Calvo, Emilio & Lasaga, Javier & van den Nouweland, Anne, 1999. "Values of games with probabilistic graphs," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 79-95, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fujimoto, Katsushige & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Marichal, Jean-Luc, 2006. "Axiomatic characterizations of probabilistic and cardinal-probabilistic interaction indices," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 72-99, April.
    2. Suzuki, T. & Talman, A.J.J., 2011. "Solution Concepts for Cooperative Games with Circular Communication Structure," Discussion Paper 2011-100, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    3. Faigle, U. & Grabisch, M. & Heyne, M., 2010. "Monge extensions of cooperation and communication structures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 104-110, October.
    4. E. Algaba & J. Bilbao & R. Brink, 2015. "Harsanyi power solutions for games on union stable systems," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 27-44, February.
    5. S. Béal & A. Lardon & E. Rémila & P. Solal, 2012. "The average tree solution for multi-choice forest games," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 27-51, July.
    6. Michel Grabisch & Lijue Xie, 2011. "The restricted core of games on distributive lattices: how to share benefits in a hierarchy," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 73(2), pages 189-208, April.
    7. Federico Valenciano & Annick Laruelle, 2003. "Potential, Value And Probability," Working Papers. Serie AD 2003-01, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    8. 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.
    9. Michel Grabisch & Lijue Xie, 2008. "The core of games on distributive lattices: how to share benefits in a hierarchy," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00344802, HAL.
    10. 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.
    11. Carreras, Francesc & Giménez, José Miguel, 2010. "Semivalues: power,potential and multilinear extensions," MPRA Paper 27620, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Encarnaciön Algaba & Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Phillippe Solal, 2018. "Harsanyi power solutions for cooperative games on voting structures," Working Papers 2018-05, CRESE.
    13. Ciftci, B.B. & Dimitrov, D.A., 2006. "Stable Coalition Structures in Simple Games with Veto Control," Discussion Paper 2006-114, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Encarnacion Algaba & Rene van den Brink, 2019. "The Shapley Value and Games with Hierarchies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-064/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    15. Geoffroy de Clippel & Roberto Serrano, 2008. "Marginal Contributions and Externalities in the Value," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1413-1436, November.
    16. Encarnacion Algaba & Rene van den Brink, 2021. "Networks, Communication and Hierarchy: Applications to Cooperative Games," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 21-019/IV, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Labreuche, Christophe, 2011. "Interaction indices for games on combinatorial structures with forbidden coalitions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 99-108, October.
    18. Michel Grabisch, 2011. "Ensuring the boundedness of the core of games with restricted cooperation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 137-154, November.
    19. László Á. Kóczy, 2016. "Power Indices When Players can Commit to Reject Coalitions," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 77-91, August.
    20. Giulia Cesari & Roberto Lucchetti & Stefano Moretti, 2017. "Generalized additive games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(4), pages 919-939, November.

    More about this item

    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:mse:wpsorb:b06087. 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: Lucie Label (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/msep1fr.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.