An axiomatization of the kernel for TU games through reduced game monotonicity and reduced dominance

In the framework of transferable utility games, we modify the 2-person Davis–Maschler reduced game to ensure non-emptiness (NE) of the imputation set of the adapted 2-person reduced game. Based on the modification, we propose two new axioms: reduced game monotonicity (RGM) and reduced dominance (RD). Using RGM, RD, NE, Covariance under strategic equivalence, Equal treatment property and Pareto optimality, we are able to characterize the kernel.     

Game-theoretic analyses of coalition behavior

Coalitions are frequently more visible than payoffs. The theory of n-person games seeks primarily to identify stable allocations of valued resources; consequently, it gives inadequate attention to predicting which coalitions form. This paper explores a way of correcting this deficiency of game-theoretic reasoning by extending the theory of two-person cooperative games to predict both coalitions and payoffs in a three-person game of status in which each player seeks to maximize the rank of his total score. To accomplish this, we analyze the negotiations within each potential two-person coalition from the perspective of Nash's procedure for arbitrating two-person bargaining games, then assume that players expect to achieve the arbitrated outcome selected by this procedure and use these expectations to predict achieved ranks and to identify players' preferences between alternative coalition partners in order to predict the probability that each coalition forms. We test these payoff and coalition predictions with data from three laboratory studies, and compare the results with those attained in the same data by von Neumann and Morgenstern's solution of two-person cooperative games, Aumann and Maschler's bargaining set solution for cooperative n-person games, and an alternative model of coalition behavior in three-person sequential games of status.

---

     

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.     

Ordinal equivalence of power notions in voting games

In this paper, we are concerned with the preorderings (SS) and (BC) induced in the set of players of a simple game by the Shapley–Shubik and the Banzhaf–Coleman's indices, respectively. Our main result is a generalization of Tomiyama's 1987 result on ordinal power equivalence in simple games; more precisely, we obtain a characterization of the simple games for which the (SS) and the (BC) preorderings coincide with the desirability preordering (T), a concept introduced by Isbell (1958), and recently reconsidered by Taylor (1995): this happens if and only if the game is swap robust, a concept introduced by Taylor and Zwicker (1993). Since any weighted majority game is swap robust, our result is therefore a generalization of Tomiyama's. Other results obtained in this paper say that the desirability relation keeps itself in all the veto-holder extensions of any simple game, and so does the (SS) preordering in all the veto-holder extensions of any swap robust simple game.     

An axiomatic analysis of the Nash equilibrium concept

The purpose of this paper is to analyze axiomatically the Nash equilibrium concept. The class of games under study is a (relatively large) subclass of n-person normal form games. Solutions are correspondences which associate to each game a non empty set of strategy vectors of this game. It is shown that if a solution satisfies the axioms Independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) and Individual rationality (IR), then all the strategy vectors in this solution are Nash equilibria. This result holds good also if IR is replaced by Strong individual monotonicity (SIM) or Weak principle of fair compromise (WPFC).     

Granny Versus Game Theorist: Ambiguity in Experimental Games

We report on an experiment in which subjects choose actions in strategic games with either strategic complements or substitutes against a granny, a game theorist or other subjects. The games are selected in order to test predictions on the comparative statics of equilibrium with respect to changes in strategic ambiguity. We find that subjects face higher ambiguity while playing against the granny than playing against the game theorist if we assume that subjects are ambiguity averse. Moreover, under the same assumption, subjects choose more secure actions in games more prone to ambiguity which is in line with the predictions.      

Coalitional Interval Games for Strategic Games in Which Players Cooperate

We propose a method to associate a coalitional interval game with each strategic game. The method is based on the lower and upper values of finite two-person zero-sum games. Associating with a strategic game a coalitional interval game we avoid having to take either a pessimistic or an optimistic approach to the problem. The paper makes two contributions to the literature: It provides a theoretical foundation for the study of coalitional interval games and it also provides, studies, and characterizes a natural method of associating coalitional interval games with strategic games.      

Hierarchies achievable in simple games

A previous work by Friedman et al. (Theory and Decision, 61:305–318, 2006) introduces the concept of a hierarchy of a simple voting game and characterizes which hierarchies, induced by the desirability relation, are achievable in linear games. In this paper, we consider the problem of determining all hierarchies, conserving the ordinal equivalence between the Shapley–Shubik and the Penrose–Banzhaf–Coleman power indices, achievable in simple games. It is proved that only four hierarchies are non-achievable in simple games. Moreover, it is also proved that all achievable hierarchies are already obtainable in the class of weakly linear games. Our results prove that given an arbitrary complete pre-ordering defined on a finite set with more than five elements, it is possible to construct a simple game such that the pre-ordering induced by the Shapley–Shubik and the Penrose–Banzhaf–Coleman power indices coincides with the given pre-ordering.     

Punishing greediness in divide-the-dollar games

Brams and Taylor 1994 presented a version of the divide-the-dollar game (DD), which they call DD1. DD1 suffers from the following drawback: when each player demands approximately the entire dollar, then if the least greedy player is unique, then this player obtains approximately the entire dollar even if he is only slightly less greedy than the other players. I introduce a parametrized family of 2-person DD games, whose “endpoints” (the games that correspond to the extreme points of the parameter space) are (1) a variant of DD1, and (2) a game that completely overcomes the greediness-related problem. I also study an n-person generalization of this family. Finally, I show that the modeling choice between discrete and continuous bids may have far-reaching implications in DD games.     

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.     

Double deception: Two against one in three-person games

This article examines deception possibilities for two players in simple three-person voting games. An example of one game vulnerable to (tacit) deception by two players is given and its implications discussed. The most unexpected findings of this study is that in those games vulnerable to deception by two players, the optimal strategy of one of them is always to announce his (true) preference order. Moreover, since the player whose optimal announcement is his true one is unable to induce a better outcome for himself by misrepresenting his preference, while his partner can, this player will find that possessing a monopoly of information will not give him any special advantage. In fact, this analysis demonstrates that he may have incentives to share his information selectively with one or another of his opponents should he alone possess complete information at the outset.     

Game Trees For Decision Analysis

Game trees (or extensive-form games) were first defined by von Neumann and Morgenstern in 1944. In this paper we examine the use of game trees for representing Bayesian decision problems. We propose a method for solving game trees using local computation. This method is a special case of a method due to Wilson for computing equilibria in 2-person games. Game trees differ from decision trees in the representations of information constraints and uncertainty. We compare the game tree representation and solution technique with other techniques for decision analysis such as decision trees, influence diagrams, and valuation networks.     

A taxonomy of all ordinal 2 × 2 games

The 2 × 2 game is the simplest and most commonly employed representation of strategic conflict. The 78 strict ordinal 2 × 2 games have been used as conflict models extensively, and have been related in several different taxonomies. However, interest has recently focussed on the full set of 726 general ordinal games, in which one or both players may have equal preferences for two or more outcomes. This paper describes the development of a practical taxonomy of all 726 ordinal 2 × 2 games. The taxonomy provides for rapid identification of particular games, gives a convenient ordering, is as consistent as possible with previous work, and yet is not tied to any specific solution concepts. As well, definitions of several significant game properties are developed or extended to general ordinal games and applied in conjunction with the taxonomy.     

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.     

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.     

Endogenous correlated equilibria in noncooperative games

Most of the results of modern game theory presuppose that the choices rational agents make in noncooperative games are probabilistically independent. In this paper I argue that there is noa priori reason for rational agents to assume probabilistic independence. I introduce a solution concept for noncooperative games called anendogenous correlated equilibrium, which generalizes the Nash equilibrium concept by dropping probabilistic independence. I contrast the endogenous correlated equilibrium with the correlated equilibrium defined by Aumann (1974, 1987). I conclude that in general the endogenous correlated equilibrium concept is a more appropriate solution concept for noncooperative game theory than the less general Nash equilibrium concept. I close by discussing the relationship between endogenous correlated equilibrium and the game solution concept calledrationalizability introduced by Bernheim (1984) and Pearce (1984).     

On the predictive efficiency of the core solution in side-payment games

This paper reports the first cross-study competitive test of thecore solution in side-payment games where the core is nonempty and nonunique (i.e., larger than a single point). The core was tested against five alternative theories including the Shapley value, the disruption nucleolus, the nucleolus, the 2-center, and the equality solution. A generalized Euclidean distance metric which indexes the average distance between an observed payoff vector and the entire set of predicted payoff vectors (Bonacich, 1979) was used as the measure of goodness-of-fit. Analysis of data assembled from six previously reported studies (encompassing a total of 1,464 observations over 56 3-person and 4-person side-payment games) showed the core to predict less accurately than the Shapley value, disruption nucleolus, and nucleolus solutions (p < 0.01). These findings are consistent with previous empirical results that show the core to have a low level of predictive accuracy in side-payment games.This research was supported by grants SOC-7726932 and SES-8015528 from the National Science Foundation. Data analysis was performed at the Madison Academic Computing Center.     

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.     

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.