Paper detail

Complementary cooperation, minimal winning coalitions, and power indices

We introduce a new simple game, which is referred to as the complementary weighted multiple majority game (C-WMMG for short). C-WMMG models a basic cooperation rule, the complementary cooperation rule, and can be taken as a sister model of the famous weighted majority game (WMG for short). In this paper, we concentrate on the two dimensional C-WMMG. An interesting property of this case is that there are at most $n+1$ minimal winning coalitions (MWC for short), and they can be enumerated in time $O(n\log n)$, where $n$ is the number of players. This property guarantees that the two dimensional C-WMMG is more handleable than WMG. In particular, we prove that the main power indices, i.e. the Shapley-Shubik index, the Penrose-Banzhaf index, the Holler-Packel index, and the Deegan-Packel index, are all polynomially computable. To make a comparison with WMG, we know that it may have exponentially many MWCs, and none of the four power indices is polynomially computable (unless P=NP). Still for the two dimensional case, we show that local monotonicity holds for all of the four power indices. In WMG, this property is possessed by the Shapley-Shubik index and the Penrose-Banzhaf index, but not by the Holler-Packel index or the Deegan-Packel index. Since our model fits very well the cooperation and competition in team sports, we hope that it can be potentially applied in measuring the values of players in team sports, say help people give more objective ranking of NBA players and select MVPs, and consequently bring new insights into contest theory and the more general field of sports economics. It may also provide some interesting enlightenments into the design of non-additive voting mechanisms. Last but not least, the threshold version of C-WMMG is a generalization of WMG, and natural variants of it are closely related with the famous airport game and the stable marriage/roommates problem.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.