Disjointly and jointly productive players and the Shapley value

Besner, Manfred (2021): Disjointly and jointly productive players and the Shapley value.

Abstract

Central to this study is the concept of disjointly productive players. Two players are disjointly productive if there is no synergy effect if one of these players joins a coalition containing the other. Our first new axiom states that the payoff to a player does not change when another player, disjointly productive with that player, leaves the game. The second new axiom means that if we merge two disjointly productive players into a new player, the payoff to a third player does not change. These two axioms, along with efficiency, characterize the Shapley value and may be useful in improving the run time for computing the Shapley value in games with some disjointly productive players. Further axiomatizations of the Shapley value are provided in which jointly productive players, known as mutually dependent players, also play a role. Using a change of behavior property, the payoff for two players in two games in which their behavior changed once to total dislike and once to total like is equal to the payoff in the original game. Another axiomatization uses an additivity property for games in which two players have also changed their behavior to total non-cooperation.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Cooperative game; Shapley value; Disjointly productive players; Mutually dependent players; Merged (disjointly productive) players game
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C71 - Cooperative Games

References

Alonso-Meijide, J. M., Álvarez-Mozos, M., & Fiestras-Janeiro, M. G. (2012). Notes on a comment on 2-efficiency and the Banzhaf value. Applied Mathematics Letters, 7(25) 1098–1100.

Aumann, R. J., & Drèze, J. H. (1974). Cooperative games with coalition structures. International Journal of Game Theory 3,(4) 217–237.

Banzhaf, J. F. (1965). Weighted voting does not work: a mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Review 19, 317–343.

Béal, S., Ferrières, S., Rémila, E., & Solal, P. (2018). The proportional Shapley value and applications. Games and Economic Behavior 108, 93–112.

Besner, M. (2016). Lösungskonzepte kooperativer Spiele mit Koalitionsstrukturen. Diplomarbeit, Fern-Universit¨at Hagen, Germany

Besner, M. (2019). Axiomatizations of the proportional Shapley value. Theory and Decision, 86(2), 161–183.

Besner, M. (2020). Value dividends, the Harsanyi set and extensions, and the proportional Harsanyi solution. International Journal of Game Theory, 1–23.

Billot, A., & Thisse, J. F. (2005). How to share when context matters: The Möbius value as a generalized solution for cooperative games. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 41(8), 1007–1029.

Casajus, A. (2011). Marginality, differential marginality, and the Banzhaf value. Theory and decision, 71(3), 365–372.

Casajus, A. (2012). Amalgamating players, symmetry, and the Banzhaf value. International Journal of Game Theory, 41(3), 497–515.

Casajus, A. (2018). Symmetry, mutual dependence, and the weighted Shapley values. Journal of Economic Theory 178, 105-123.

Chae, S. & Heidhues, P. (2004). A group bargaining solution. Mathematical Social Sciences, 48(1), 37–53.

Derks, J., & Haller, H. H. (1999). Null players out? Linear values for games with variable supports. International Game Theory Review, 1(3–4), 301–314.

Derks, J., & Tijs, S. (2000). On merge properties of the Shapley value. International Game Theory Review, 2(04), 249–257.

Grabisch, M., & Roubens, M. (1999). An axiomatic approach to the concept of interaction among players in cooperative games. International Journal of game theory, 28(4), 547–565.

Haller, H. (1994). Collusion properties of values. International Journal of Game Theory, 23(3), 261–281.

Harsanyi, J. C. (1959). A bargaining model for cooperative n-person games. In: A. W. Tucker & R. D. Luce (Eds.), Contributions to the theory of games IV (325–355). Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Harsanyi, J. C. (1977). Rational behavior and bargaining equilibrium in games and social situations. Cambridge University Press.

Hart, S., & Kurz, M. (1983). Endogenous formation of coalitions. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 1047-1064.

Hart, S., & Mas-Colell, A. (1989). Potential, value, and consistency. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 589–614.

Kalai, E., & Samet, D. (1987). On weighted Shapley values. International Journal of Game Theory 16(3), 205–222.

Lehrer, E. (1988). An axiomatization of the Banzhaf value. International Journal of Game Theory 17(2), 89–99.

Nowak, A. S. (1997). On an axiomatization of the Banzhaf value without the additivity axiom. International Journal of Game Theory 26(1), 137–141.

Nowak, A. S., & Radzik, T. (1995). On axiomatizations of the weighted Shapley values. Games and Economic Behavior, 8(2), 389–405.

Owen, G. (1977). Values of games with a priori unions. In Essays in Mathematical Economics and Game Theory, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 76–88.

Radzik, T. (2012). A new look at the role of players’ weights in the weighted Shapley value. European Journal of Operational Research, 223(2), 407–416.

Rodríguez-Pèrez, R., & Bajorath, J. (2020). Interpretation of machine learning models using shapley val- ues: application to compound potency and multi-target activity predictions. Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 34(10), 1013–1026.

Shapley, L. S. (1953a). Additive and non-additive set functions. Princeton University.

Shapley, L. S. (1953b). A value for n-person games. H. W. Kuhn/A. W. Tucker (eds.), Contributions to the Theory of Games, Vol. 2, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 307–317.

Štrumbelj, E., & Kononenko, I. (2014). Explaining prediction models and individual predictions with feature contributions. Knowledge and information systems, 41(3), 647–665.

Takeishi, N. (2019, November). Shapley values of reconstruction errors of pca for explaining anomaly detection. In 2019 international conference on data mining workshops (icdmw), (pp. 793–798). IEEE.

Vidal-Puga, J. (2012). The Harsanyi paradox and the ”right to talk” in bargaining among coalitions. Mathematical Social Sciences, 64(3), 214–224.