Solution Concept For Coalitional Games Research Articles

The Complexity of the Nucleolus in Compact Games

The nucleolus is a well-known solution concept for coalitional games to fairly distribute the total available worth among the players. The nucleolus is known to be NP -hard to compute over compact coalitional games, that is, over games whose functions specifying the worth associated with each coalition are encoded in terms of polynomially computable functions over combinatorial structures. In particular, hardness results have been exhibited over minimum spanning tree games, threshold games, and flow games. However, due to its intricate definition involving reasoning over exponentially many coalitions, a nontrivial upper bound on its complexity was missing in the literature and looked for. This article faces this question and precisely characterizes the complexity of the nucleolus, by exhibiting an upper bound that holds on any class of compact games, and by showing that this bound is tight even on the (structurally simple) class of graph games. The upper bound is established by proposing a variant of the standard linear-programming based algorithm for nucleolus computation and by studying a framework for reasoning about succinctly specified linear programs, which are contributions of interest in their own. The hardness result is based on an elaborate combinatorial reduction, which is conceptually relevant for it provides a “measure” of the computational cost to be paid for guaranteeing voluntary participation to the distribution process. In fact, the pre-nucleolus is known to be efficiently computable over graph games, with this solution concept being defined as the nucleolus but without guaranteeing that each player is granted with it at least the worth she can get alone, that is, without collaborating with the other players. Finally, this article identifies relevant tractable classes of coalitional games, based on the notion of type of a player. Indeed, in most applications where many players are involved, it is often the case that such players do belong in fact to a limited number of classes, which is known in advance and may be exploited for computing the nucleolus in a fast way.

Coalitional Games in MISO Interference Channels: Epsilon-Core and Coalition Structure Stable Set

The multiple-input single-output interference channel is considered. Each transmitter is assumed to know the channels between itself and all receivers perfectly and the receivers are assumed to treat interference as additive noise. In this setting, noncooperative transmission does not take into account the interference generated at other receivers which generally leads to inefficient performance of the links. To improve this situation, we study cooperation between the links using coalitional games. The players (links) in a coalition either perform zero forcing transmission or Wiener filter precoding to each other. The $\epsilon$-core is a solution concept for coalitional games which takes into account the overhead required in coalition deviation. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the strong and weak $\epsilon$-core of our coalitional game not to be empty with zero forcing transmission. Since, the $\epsilon$-core only considers the possibility of joint cooperation of all links, we study coalitional games in partition form in which several distinct coalitions can form. We propose a polynomial time distributed coalition formation algorithm based on coalition merging and prove that its solution lies in the coalition structure stable set of our coalition formation game. Simulation results reveal the cooperation gains for different coalition formation complexities and deviation overhead models.

On the complexity of core, kernel, and bargaining set

Coalitional games model scenarios where players can collaborate by forming coalitions in order to obtain higher worths than by acting in isolation. A fundamental issue of coalitional games is to single out the most desirable outcomes in terms of worth distributions, usually called solution concepts. Since decisions taken by realistic players cannot involve unbounded resources, recent computer science literature advocated the importance of assessing the complexity of computing with solution concepts. In this context, the paper provides a complete picture of the complexity issues arising with three prominent solution concepts for coalitional games with transferable utility, namely, the core, the kernel, and the bargaining set, whenever the game worth-function is represented in some reasonably compact form. The starting points of the investigation are the settings of graph games and of marginal contribution nets, where the worth of any coalition can be computed in polynomial time in the size of the game encoding and for which various open questions were stated in the literature. The paper answers these questions and, in addition, provides new insights on succinctly specified games, by characterizing the computational complexity of the core, the kernel, and the bargaining set in relevant generalizations and specializations of the two settings. Concerning the generalizations, the paper shows that dealing with arbitrary polynomial-time computable worth functions—no matter of the specific game encoding being considered—does not provide any additional source of complexity compared to graph games and marginal contribution nets. Instead, only for the core, a slight increase in complexity is exhibited for classes of games whose worth functions encode NP-hard optimization problems, as in the case of certain combinatorial games. As for specializations, the paper illustrates various tractability results on classes of bounded treewidth graph games and marginal contribution networks.

Anonymity-proof Shapley Value: Compact and Computationally Efficient Solution Concept for Coalitional Games in Open Anonymous Environment

Anonymity-proof Shapley Value: Compact and Computationally Efficient Solution Concept for Coalitional Games in Open Anonymous Environment

Reasoning about coalitional games

We develop, investigate, and compare two logic-based knowledge representation formalisms for reasoning about coalitional games. The main constructs of Coalitional Game Logic ( cgl) are expressions for representing the ability of coalitions, which may be combined with expressions for representing the preferences that agents have over outcomes. Modal Coalitional Game Logic ( mcgl) is a normal modal logic, in which the main construct is a modality for expressing the preferences of groups of agents. For both frameworks, we give complete axiomatisations, and show how they can be used to characterise solution concepts for coalitional games. We show that, while cgl is more expressive than mcgl, the former can only be used to reason about coalitional games with finitely many outcomes, while mcgl can be used to reason also about games with infinitely many outcomes, and is in addition more succinct. We characterise the computational complexity of satisfiability for cgl, and give a tableaux-based decision procedure.

A linear approximation method for the Shapley value

The Shapley value is a key solution concept for coalitional games in general and voting games in particular. Its main advantage is that it provides a unique and fair solution, but its main drawback is the complexity of computing it (e.g., for voting games this complexity is #p-complete). However, given the importance of the Shapley value and voting games, a number of approximation methods have been developed to overcome this complexity. Among these, Owen's multi-linear extension method is the most time efficient, being linear in the number of players. Now, in addition to speed, the other key criterion for an approximation algorithm is its approximation error. On this dimension, the multi-linear extension method is less impressive. Against this background, this paper presents a new approximation algorithm, based on randomization, for computing the Shapley value of voting games. This method has time complexity linear in the number of players, but has an approximation error that is, on average, lower than Owen's. In addition to this comparative study, we empirically evaluate the error for our method and show how the different parameters of the voting game affect it. Specifically, we show the following effects. First, as the number of players in a voting game increases, the average percentage error decreases. Second, as the quota increases, the average percentage error decreases. Third, the error is different for players with different weights; players with weight closer to the mean weight have a lower error than those with weight further away. We then extend our approximation to the more general k-majority voting games and show that, for n players, the method has time complexity O ( k 2 n ) and the upper bound on its approximation error is O ( k 2 / n ) .

Mergers and Asset Prices in a Firm Network Economy

We examine merger activity and its effect on asset pricing in a firm network economy. Mergers create internal capital markets which change the cash flow risk structure of the merging firms. We propose a solution concept for coalitional games without the superadditivity axiom, which extends the Shapley value, and apply it to the merging activity of firms in a network. The results show that firm values in a network should not be considered in isolation. Merger corrections increase the equity value of the firms. Higher network dependence decreases the number of coalitions formed, i.e. it encourages mergers, and gives higher value to a merging firm. Recession (prosperity), as measured by the average debt/total assets ratio, generally increase (decrease) the number of coalitions in a network.

The Monoclus of a Coalitional Game

The analysis of single-valued solution concepts for coalitional games with transferable utilities has a long tradition. Opposed to most of this literature we will not deal with solution concepts that provide payoffs to the players for the grand coalition only, but we will analyze allocation scheme rules, which assign payoffs to all players in all coalitions. We introduce four closely related allocation scheme rules for coalitional games. Each of these rules results in a population monotonic allocation scheme (PMAS) whenever the underlying coalitional game allows for a PMAS. The driving force behind these rules are monotonicities, which measure the payoff difference for a player between two nested coalitions. From a functional point of view these monotonicities can best be compared with the excesses in the definition of the (pre-)nucleolus. Two different domains and two different collections of monotonicities result in four allocation scheme rules. For each of the rules we deal with nonemptiness, uniqueness, and continuity, followed by an analysis of conditions for (some of) the rules to coincide. We then focus on characterizing the rules in terms of subbalanced weights. Finally, we deal with computational issues by providing a sequence of linear programs.