IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cte/wsrepe/ws122418.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pyramidal values

Author

Listed:
  • Molina, Elisenda
  • Tejada, Juan

Abstract

We propose a new type of values for cooperative TU-games, which we call pyramidal values. Assuming that the grand coalition is sequentially formed, and all orderings are equally likely, we define a pyramidal value to be any expected payoff in which the entrant player receives a salary and the right to get part of the benefits derived from subsequent incorporations to the just formed coalition, whereas the remaining benefit is distributed among the incumbent players. To be specific, we consider some parametric families of pyramidal values: the egalitarian pyramidal family, which coincides with the a-consensus value family introduced by Ju et al. in (2007), the proportional pyramidal family, and the weighted pyramidal family, which in turn includes the other two families as special cases. We also analyze the properties of these families, as well as their relationships with other previously defined values.

Suggested Citation

  • Molina, Elisenda & Tejada, Juan, 2012. "Pyramidal values," DES - Working Papers. Statistics and Econometrics. WS ws122418, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Estadística.
    • Handle: RePEc:cte:wsrepe:ws122418
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/rest/api/core/bitstreams/2e15f193-5b37-413b-9455-d030b169548d/content
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yuan Ju & Peter Borm & Pieter Ruys, 2007. "The consensus value: a new solution concept for cooperative games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(4), pages 685-703, June.
    2. Jean J. M. Derks & Hans H. Haller, 1999. "Null Players Out? Linear Values For Games With Variable Supports," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 1(03n04), pages 301-314.
    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. René Brink & Yukihiko Funaki, 2009. "Axiomatizations of a Class of Equal Surplus Sharing Solutions for TU-Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(3), pages 303-340, September.
    2. Béal, Sylvain & Rémila, Eric & Solal, Philippe, 2015. "Preserving or removing special players: What keeps your payoff unchanged in TU-games?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 23-31.
    3. Sylvain Ferrières, 2017. "Nullified equal loss property and equal division values," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 385-406, October.
    4. René Brink & Yukihiko Funaki & Yuan Ju, 2013. "Reconciling marginalism with egalitarianism: consistency, monotonicity, and implementation of egalitarian Shapley values," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 693-714, March.
    5. Koji Yokote & Takumi Kongo & Yukihiko Funaki, 2019. "Relationally equal treatment of equals and affine combinations of values for TU games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(2), pages 197-212, August.
    6. Koji Yokote & Takumi Kongo & Yukihiko Funaki, 2021. "Redistribution to the less productive: parallel characterizations of the egalitarian Shapley and consensus values," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 81-98, July.
    7. Ramón Flores & Elisenda Molina & Juan Tejada, 2014. "Pyramidal values," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 217(1), pages 233-252, June.
    8. Takumi Kongo, 2024. "Equal support from others for unproductive players: efficient and linear values that satisfy the equal treatment and weak null player out properties for cooperative games," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 338(2), pages 973-989, July.
    9. Sylvain Béal & Marc Deschamps & Mostapha Diss & Rodrigue Tido Takeng, 2024. "Cooperative games with diversity constraints," Working Papers hal-04447373, HAL.
    10. Youngsub Chun & Boram Park, 2016. "The airport problem with capacity constraints," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(3), pages 237-253, September.
    11. Sylvain Béal & Amandine Ghintran & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "The sequential equal surplus division for rooted forest games and an application to sharing a river with bifurcations," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(2), pages 251-283, September.
    12. Sylvain Béal & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2017. "Axiomatization and implementation of a class of solidarity values for TU-games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 61-94, June.
    13. Quant, M. & Borm, P.E.M. & Maaten, R., 2005. "A Concede-and-Divide Rule for Bankruptcy Problems," Discussion Paper 2005-20, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    14. Ghintran, Amandine, 2013. "Weighted position values," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 157-163.
    15. Yuan Ju, 2007. "The Consensus Value For Games In Partition Function Form," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 437-452.
    16. Sylvain Béal & Sylvain Ferrières & Philippe Solal, 2022. "The priority value for cooperative games with a priority structure," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 51(2), pages 431-450, June.
    17. Ander Perez-Orive & Andrea Caggese, 2017. "Capital Misallocation and Secular Stagnation," 2017 Meeting Papers 382, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    18. Kongo, Takumi, 2018. "Balanced contributions based on indirect claims and the Shapley value," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 48-50.
    19. Harald Wiese, 2012. "Values with exogenous payments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(4), pages 485-508, April.
    20. Manfred Besner, 2022. "Harsanyi support levels solutions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(1), pages 105-130, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Game theory;

    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:cte:wsrepe:ws122418. 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: Ana Poveda (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://portal.uc3m.es/portal/page/portal/dpto_estadistica .

    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.