Bargaining strength in three-person characteristic-function games with v(i)> 0 a reanalysis of Kahan and Rapoport (1977)

Kahan and Rapoport (1977) investigated the effects of guaranteed payoffs on bargaining in three-person cooperative games by systematically varying different sources of power: the power arising from the 1-person values, the power emerging from the pair coalitions as reflected by the quotas of the non-normalized game, and the grand coalition value. In the present paper it is suggested that one additionally take into account the assumption of strategic equivalence and that one analyze games with v(i)>0 in terms of the quotas of the zero-normalized game. Ostmann's (1984) rather sophisticated game theoretic framework, permitting the standardization of all three-person games, is introduced. A reanalysis of Kahan and Rapoport's data employing this perspective yields results which can be interpreted more easily than those of the original study. Moreover, they are consistent with the findings of almost all studies on 3-person characteristic-function games. It is argued that one could use the introduced analytical framework to investigate the range of empirical validity of the mathematical assumption of invariance under strategic equivalence.     

The stability of bargains behind the veil of ignorance

Although analyses about what representative individuals would choose behind the veil of ignorance have been regarded as n-person non-zero-sum cooperative games, none of the apparatus of game theory beyond 2-person non-zero-sum noncooperative games has actually been used. The grand coalition of all representative individuals emerges from behind the veil of ignorance to form a society unanimously. This paper investigates the consequences of extending the original position to allow three persons the possibility of forming binding coalitions behind the veil of ignorance. Just enough information and structure is added to the traditional analysis, to make bargaining feasible. The result is that whether or not representative individuals know the payoff structure for forming a society, a stable unanimous agreement may not emerge. The analysis shows yet another way in which original position arguments are sensitive to assumptions about information and criteria of rational decision behind the veil of ignorance.     

Comparative accuracy of value solutions in non-sidepayment games with empty core

This article reports a test of the predictive accuracy of solution concepts in cooperative non-sidepayment n-person games with empty core. Six solutions were tested. Three of these were value solutions (i.e., -transfer value, -transfer nucleolus, and -transfer disruption value) and three were equilibrium solutions (deterrence set, stable set, and imputation set). The test was based on a laboratory experiment utilizing 5-person, 2-choice normal form games with empty core; other related data sets were also analyzed. Goodness-of-fit results based on discrepancy scores show that the three value solutions are about equally accurate in predicting outcomes, and that all three are substantially more accurate than the other solutions tested.     

A Banzhaf share function for cooperative games in coalition structure

A cooperative game with transferable utility–or simply a TU-game– describes a situation in which players can obtain certain payoffs by cooperation. A value function for these games assigns to every TU-game a distribution of payoffs over the players. Well-known solutions for TU-games are the Shapley and the Banzhaf value. An alternative type of solution is the concept of share function, which assigns to every player in a TU-game its share in the worth of the grand coalition. In this paper we consider TU-games in which the players are organized into a coalition structure being a finite partition of the set of players. The Shapley value has been generalized by Owen to TU-games in coalition structure. We redefine this value function as a share function and show that this solution satisfies the multiplication property that the share of a player in some coalition is equal to the product of the Shapley share of the coalition in a game between the coalitions and the Shapley share of the player in a game between the players within the coalition. Analogously we introduce a Banzhaf coalition structure share function. Application of these share functions to simple majority games show some appealing properties.     

Domination structures and multicriteria problems in n-person games

Multiple criteria decision problems with one decision maker have been recognized and discussed in the recent literature in optimization theory, operations research and management science. The corresponding concept with n-decision makers, namely multicriteria n-person games, has not yet been extensively explored.In this paper we first demonstrate that existing solution concepts for single criterion n-person games in both normal form and characteristic function form induce domination structures (similar to those defined and studied by Yu [39] for multicriteria single decision maker problems) in various spaces, including the payoff space, the imputation space and the coalition space. This discussion provides an understanding of some underlying assumptions of the solution concepts and provides a basis for generalizing and generating new solution concepts not yet defined. Also we illustrate that domination structures may be regarded as a measure of power held by the players.We then illustrate that a multicriteria problem can naturally arise in decision situations involving (partial) conflict among n-persons. Using our discussion of solution concepts for single criterion games as a basis, various approaches for resolving both normal form and characteristic function form multicriteria n-person games are proposed. For multicriteria games in characteristic function form, we define a multicriteria core and show that there exists a single game point whose core is equal to the multicriteria core. If we reduce a multicriteria game to a single criterion game, domination structures which are more general than classical ones must be considered, otherwise some crucial information in the game may be lost. Finally, we discuss a parametrization process which, for a given multicriteria game, associates a single criterion game to each point in a parametric space. This parametrization provides a basis for the discussion of solution concepts in multicriteria n-person games.     

Axiomatization of a class of share functions for n-person games

The Shapley value is the unique value defined on the class of cooperative games in characteristic function form which satisfies certain intuitively reasonable axioms. Alternatively, the Banzhaf value is the unique value satisfying a different set of axioms. The main drawback of the latter value is that it does not satisfy the efficiency axiom, so that the sum of the values assigned to the players does not need to be equal to the worth of the grand coalition. By definition, the normalized Banzhaf value satisfies the efficiency axiom, but not the usual axiom of additivity.In this paper we generalize the axiom of additivity by introducing a positive real valued function on the class of cooperative games in characteristic function form. The so-called axiom of -additivity generalizes the classical axiom of additivity by putting the weight (v) on the value of the gamev . We show that any additive function determines a unique share function satisfying the axioms of efficient shares, null player property, symmetry and -additivity on the subclass of games on which is positive and which contains all positively scaled unanimity games. The axiom of efficient shares means that the sum of the values equals one. Hence the share function gives the shares of the players in the worth of the grand coalition. The corresponding value function is obtained by multiplying the shares with the worth of the grand coalition. By defining the function appropiately we get the share functions corresponding to the Shapley value and the Banzhaf value. So, for both values we have that the corresponding share functions belong to this class of share functions. Moreover, it shows that our approach provides an axiomatization of the normalized Banzhaf value. We also discuss some other choices of the function and the corresponding share functions. Furthermore we consider the axiomatization on the subclass of monotone simple games.     

Mechanism robustness in multilateral bargaining

This paper discusses the relationship between coalitional stability and the robustness of bargaining outcomes to the bargaining procedure. We consider a class of bargaining procedures described by extensive form games, where payoff opportunities are given by a characteristic function (cooperative) game. The extensive form games differ on the probability distribution assigned to chance moves which determine the order in which players take actions. One way to define mechanism robustness is in terms of the property of no first mover advantage. An equilibrium is mechanism robust if for each member the expected payoff before and after being called to propose is the same. Alternatively one can define mechanism robustness as a property of equilibrium outcomes. An outcome is said to be mechanism robust if it is supported by some equilibrium in all the extensive form games (mechanisms) within our class. We show that both definitions of mechanism robustness provide an interesting characterization of the core of the underlying cooperative game.     

Predictive superiority of the beta-characteristic function in cooperative non-sidepayment N-person games

This article reports an experimental study of decision-making outcomes in cooperative non-sidepayment games. The objective of this test was to determine which characteristic function, V (S) or V (S), provides the most accurate basis for payoff predictions from solution concepts. The experiment tested three solution concepts (core, stable set, imputation set) in the context of 5-person, 2-strategy non-sidepayment games. Predictions from each of the three solution concepts were computed on the basis of both V (S) and V (S), making a total of six predictive theories under test. Consistent with earlier studies (Michener et al., 1984a; Michener et al., 1985), two basic findings emerged. First, the data show that for each of the solutions tested, the prediction from any solution concept computed from V(S) was more accurate than the prediction from the same solution concept computed from V (S). Second, the -core was the most accurate of the six theories tested. Overall, these results support the view that V (S) is superior to V (S) as a basis for payoff predictions in cooperative non-sidepayment games.     

Games,goals, and bounded rationality

A generalization of the standard n-person game is presented, with flexible information requirements suitable for players constrained by certain types of bounded rationality. Strategies (complete contingency plans) are replaced by policies, i.e., endmean pairs of goals and controls (partial contingency plans), which results in naturally disconnected player choice sets. Well-known existence theorems for pure strategy Nash equilibrium and bargaining solutions are generalized to policy games by modifying connectedness (convexity) requirements.     

A test of the Core,Bargaining Set,Kernel and Shapley models in n-person quota games with one weak player

n-person (n – 1)-quota-games where the quotas are positive for certain n – 1 (strong) players and negative for the remaining (weak) player, are discussed. Normative solutions predicted by the Core,the Kernel, the Bargaining Set, the Competitive Bargaining Set, and by the Shapley Value are presented and exemplified.Each of twelve groups of subjects participated in a four-person and a five-person (n – 1)-quota games with one weak player. The weak player was always excluded from the ratified coalition. The division of payoffs among the strong players was more egalitarian than the Kernel solution but less egalitarian than the Shapley value. The Core and the Bargaining Sets were fully supported for the two strongest players, but less supported for the other players. Analyses of the bargaining process confirmed a dynamic interpretation of the Bargaining Set Theory.This research was performed while the author was at the University of North Carolina. The research was partially supported by a PHS Research Grant No. MH-10006 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The author thanks Professor Amnon Rapoport for helpful advice in the design of this study.     

Bayesian boundedly rational agents play the Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma

In this paper a model of boundedly rational decision making in the Finitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma is proposed in which: (1) each player is Bayesianrational; (2) this is common knowledge; (3) players are constrained by limited state spaces (their Bayesian minds) in processing (1) and (2). Under these circumstances, we show that cooperative behavior may arise as an individually optimal response, except for the latter part of the game. Indeed, such behaviorwill necessarily obtain in long enough games if belief systems satisfy a natural condition: essentially, that all events consistent with the players' analysis of the game be attributed by them positive (although arbitrarily small) subjective probability.     

The general relevance of the impossibility teorem in smooth social choice

A complete classification theorem for voting processes on a smooth choice spaceW of dimensionw is presented. Any voting process is classified by two integersv ^* () andw(), in terms of the existence or otherwise of the optima set, IO(), and the cycle set IC().In dimension belowv ^* () the cycle set is always empty, and in dimension abovew() the optima set is nearly always empty while the cycle set is open dense and path con nected. In the latter case agenda manipulation results in any outcome.For admissible (compact, convex) choice spaces, the two sets are related by the general equilibrium result that IO() union IC() is non-empty. This in turn implies existence of optima in low dimensions. The equilibrium theorem is used to examine voting games with an infinite electorate, and the nature ofstructure induced equilibria, induced by jurisdictional restrictions.This material is based on work supported by a Nuffield Foundation grant.     

Risk aversion in n-person bargaining

Relations between risk properties of Pareto optimal n-person bargaining solutions are studied. The (weak) worse alternative property, risk sensitivity property, and risk profit opportunity property are considered, in particular relations between these properties, and between these properties and other properties such as independence of irrelevant alternatives and individual monotonicity. A distinction is made between bargaining games where all Pareto optimal outcomes are riskless, and bargaining games where Pareto optimal outcomes may represent the utilities of lotteries between riskless alternatives. In the first mentioned case, more general results can be obtained.     

Staying power in sequential games

Staying power is the ability of a player to hold off choosing a strategy in a two-person game until the other player has selected his, after which the players are assumed to be able to move and countermove sequentially to ensure their best possible outcomes before the process cycles back to the initial outcome and then repeats itself (rational termination). These rules of sequential play induce a determinate, Paretosuperior outcome in all two-person, finite, sequential games in which the preferences of the players are strict.In 57 of the 78 distinct 2 × 2 ordinal games (73 percent), it makes no difference who the (second-moving) player with staying power is, but in the other 21 games the outcome is power-dependent. In all but one of these games, staying power benefits the player who possesses it.If no player has staying power, the outcomes that result from sequential play and rational termination are called terminal; they coincide with staying power outcomes if they are Pareto-superior. Normative implications of the analysis for rationally justifying cooperation in such games as Prisoners' Dilemma and Chicken, and implementing Pareto-superior outcomes generally, are also discussed.We are grateful to D. Marc Kilgour for very valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper, causing us to rethink and redefine staying power. The earlier version was presented at the Seventeenth North American Conference, Peace Science Society (International), University of Pennsylvania, November 9–11, 1981.     

Socially Structured Games

We generalize the concept of a cooperative non-transferable utility game by introducing a socially structured game. In a socially structured game every coalition of players can organize themselves according to one or more internal organizations to generate payoffs. Each admissible internal organization on a coalition yields a set of payoffs attainable by the members of this coalition. The strengths of the players within an internal organization depend on the structure of the internal organization and are represented by an exogenously given power vector. More powerful players have the power to take away payoffs of the less powerful players as long as those latter players are not able to guarantee their payoffs by forming a different internal organization within some coalition in which they have more power. We introduce the socially stable core as a solution concept that contains those payoffs that are both stable in an economic sense, i.e., belong to the core of the underlying cooperative game, and stable in a social sense, i.e., payoffs are sustained by a collection of internal organizations of coalitions for which power is distributed over all players in a balanced way. The socially stable core is a subset and therefore a refinement of the core. We show by means of examples that in many cases the socially stable core is a very small subset of the core. We will state conditions for which the socially stable core is non-empty. In order to derive this result, we formulate a new intersection theorem that generalizes the KKMS intersection theorem. We also discuss the relationship between social stability and the wellknown concept of balancedness for NTU-games, a sufficient condition for non-emptiness of the core. In particular we give an example of a socially structured game that satisfies social stability and therefore has a non-empty core, but whose induced NTU-game does not satisfy balancedness in the general sense of Billera.      

Experiments with cooperative 2 × 2 games

Nash's solution of a two-person cooperative game prescribes a coordinated mixed strategy solution involving Pareto-optimal outcomes of the game. Testing this normative solution experimentally presents problems in as much as rather detailed explanations must be given to the subjects of the meaning of threat strategy, strategy mixture, expected payoff, etc. To the extent that it is desired to test the solution using naive subjects, the problem arises of imparting to them a minimal level of understanding about the issue involved in the game without actually suggesting the solution.Experiments were performed to test the properties of the solution of a cooperative two-person game as these are embodied in three of Nash's four axioms: Symmetry, Pareto-optimality, and Invariance with respect to positive linear transformations. Of these, the last was definitely discorroborated, suggesting that interpersonal comparison of utilities plays an important part in the negotiations.Some evidence was also found for a conjecture generated by previous experiments, namely that an externally imposed threat (penalty for non-cooperation) tends to bring the players closer together than the threats generated by the subjects themselves in the process of negotiation.     

An Empirical Comparison of Probabilistic Coalition Structure Theories in 3-Person Sidepayment Games

This article reports a comparative test of the central-union theory vis-à-vis several other game-theoretic solution concepts in 3-person sidepayment games. Based on a laboratory experiment, this comparison utilizes nine games in characteristic function form. The solution concepts under test include the equal excess model, the Myerson–Shapley solution, the kernel, and two variants of the central-union theory (CU-1 and CU-2). With regard to the player's payoffs, results show that the CU-1, CU-2, kernel, and equal excess theories have essentially equal predictive accuracy and that all of these are more accurate than Myerson–Shapley. When the solution concepts are extended and coalition structure probability predictions are incorporated in the test, one version of the central-union theory (CU-2) is overall more accurate than the other solutions.     

Five legitimate definitions of correlated equilibrium in games with incomplete information

Aumann's (1987) theorem shows that correlated equilibrium is an expression of Bayesian rationality. We extend this result to games with incomplete information.First, we rely on Harsanyi's (1967) model and represent the underlying multiperson decision problem as a fixed game with imperfect information. We survey four definitions of correlated equilibrium which have appeared in the literature. We show that these definitions are not equivalent to each other. We prove that one of them fits Aumann's framework; the agents normal form correlated equilibrium is an expression of Bayesian rationality in games with incomplete information.We also follow a universal Bayesian approach based on Mertens and Zamir's (1985) construction of the universal beliefs space. Hierarchies of beliefs over independent variables (states of nature) and dependent variables (actions) are then constructed simultaneously. We establish that the universal set of Bayesian solutions satisfies another extension of Aumann's theorem.We get the following corollary: once the types of the players are not fixed by the model, the various definitions of correlated equilibrium previously considered are equivalent.     

Joint Beliefs in Conflictual Coordination Games

The traditional solution concept for noncooperative game theory is the Nash equilibrium, which contains an implicit assumption that players probability distributions satisfy t probabilistic independence. However, in games with more than two players, relaxing this assumption results in a more general equilibrium concept based on joint beliefs (Vanderschraaf, 1995). This article explores the implications of this joint-beliefs equilibrium concept for two kinds of conflictual coordination games: crisis bargaining and public goods provision. We find that, using updating consistent with Bayes rule, players beliefs converge to equilibria in joint beliefs which do not satisfy probabilistic independence. In addition, joint beliefs greatly expand the set of mixed equilibria. On the face of it, allowing for joint beliefs might be expected to increase the prospects for coordination. However, we show that if players use joint beliefs, which may be more likely as the number of players increases, then the prospects for coordination in these games declines vis-à-vis independent beliefs.     

A systems concept of society: Beyond individualism and holism

Three rival views of the nature of society are sketched: individualism, holism, and systemism. The ontological and methodological components of these doctrines are formulated and analyzed. Individualism is found wanting for making no room for social relations or emergent properties; holism, for refusing to analyze both of them and for losing sight of the individual.A systems view is then sketched, and it is essentially this: A society is a system of interrelated individuals sharing an environment. This commonsensical idea is formalized as follows: A society is representable as an ordered triple Composition of , Environment of , Structure of , where the structure of is the collection of relations (in particular connections) among components of . Included in the structure of any are the relations of work and of managing which are regarded as typical of human society in contrast to animal societies.Other concepts formalized in the paper are those of subsystem (in particular social subsystem), resultant property, and emergent or gestalt property. The notion of subsystem is used to build the notion of an F-sector of a society, defined as the set of all social subsystems performing a certain function F (e.g. the set of all schools). In turn, an F-institution is defined as the family of all F-sectors. Being abstractions, institutions should not be attributed a life and a mind of their own. But, since an institution is analyzable in terms of concrete totalities (namely social subsystems), it does not comply with the individualist requirement either.It is also shown that the systems view is inherent in any mathematical model in social science, since any such schema is essentially a set of individuals endowed with a certain structure. And it is stressed that the systems view combines the desirable features of both individualism and holism.