99 research outputs found
Matching Dynamics with Constraints
We study uncoordinated matching markets with additional local constraints
that capture, e.g., restricted information, visibility, or externalities in
markets. Each agent is a node in a fixed matching network and strives to be
matched to another agent. Each agent has a complete preference list over all
other agents it can be matched with. However, depending on the constraints and
the current state of the game, not all possible partners are available for
matching at all times. For correlated preferences, we propose and study a
general class of hedonic coalition formation games that we call coalition
formation games with constraints. This class includes and extends many recently
studied variants of stable matching, such as locally stable matching, socially
stable matching, or friendship matching. Perhaps surprisingly, we show that all
these variants are encompassed in a class of "consistent" instances that always
allow a polynomial improvement sequence to a stable state. In addition, we show
that for consistent instances there always exists a polynomial sequence to
every reachable state. Our characterization is tight in the sense that we
provide exponential lower bounds when each of the requirements for consistency
is violated. We also analyze matching with uncorrelated preferences, where we
obtain a larger variety of results. While socially stable matching always
allows a polynomial sequence to a stable state, for other classes different
additional assumptions are sufficient to guarantee the same results. For the
problem of reaching a given stable state, we show NP-hardness in almost all
considered classes of matching games.Comment: Conference Version in WINE 201
On the Core of Dynamic Cooperative Games
We consider dynamic cooperative games, where the worth of coalitions varies
over time according to the history of allocations. When defining the core of a
dynamic game, we allow the possibility for coalitions to deviate at any time
and thereby to give rise to a new environment. A coalition that considers a
deviation needs to take the consequences into account because from the
deviation point on, the game is no longer played with the original set of
players. The deviating coalition becomes the new grand coalition which, in
turn, induces a new dynamic game. The stage games of the new dynamical game
depend on all previous allocation including those that have materialized from
the deviating time on.
We define three types of core solutions: fair core, stable core and credible
core. We characterize the first two in case where the instantaneous game
depends on the last allocation (rather than on the whole history of
allocations) and the third in the general case. The analysis and the results
resembles to a great extent the theory of non-cooperative dynamic games.Comment: 25 page
Coalition Formation and the Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy
Several studies found ancillary benefits of environmental policy to be of considerable size. These additional private benefits imply not only higher cooperative but also noncooperative abatement targets. However, beyond these largely undisputed important quantitative effects, there are qualitative and strategic implications associated with ancillary benefits: climate policy is no longer a pure but an impure public good. In this paper, we investigate these implications in a setting of non-cooperative coalition formation. In particular, we address the following questions. 1) Do ancillary benefits increase participation in international environmental agreements? 2) Do ancillary benefits raise the success of these treaties in welfare terms
Power and welfare in bargaining for coalition structure formation
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10458-015-9310-8.We investigate a noncooperative bargaining game for partitioning n agents into non-overlapping coalitions. The game has n time periods during which the players are called according to an exogenous agenda to propose offers. With probability δ, the game ends during any time period t< n. If it does, the first t players on the agenda get a chance to propose but the others do not. Thus, δ is a measure of the degree of democracy within the game (ranging from democracy for δ= 0 , through increasing levels of authoritarianism as δ approaches 1, to dictatorship for δ= 1). We determine the subgame perfect equilibrium (SPE) and study how a player’s position on the agenda affects his bargaining power. We analyze the relation between the distribution of power of individual players, the level of democracy, and the welfare efficiency of the game. We find that purely democratic games are welfare inefficient and that introducing a degree of authoritarianism into the game makes the distribution of power more equitable and also maximizes welfare. These results remain invariant under two types of player preferences: one where each player’s preference is a total order on the space of possible coalition structures and the other where each player either likes or dislikes a coalition structure. Finally, we show that the SPE partition may or may not be core stable
- …