Aumann's and Schelling's Game Theory: The Nobel Prize in Economic Science, 2005

Abstract

Robert Aumann and Thomas Schelling won the Nobel Prize in Economic Science in 2005. Their work in game theory shows two different approaches to understanding strategic interaction. Schelling's work on the strategic aspects of negotiations, focal points, and self-command is mathematically informal and is based on experimental and inductive knowledge of players' capabilities. Aumann's work on repeated games and common knowledge is mathematically deductive, and assumes highly rational agents. An exploration of their work allows for a comparison of these two approaches.     

Disadvantageous syndicates and stable cartels: The case of the nucleolus

This paper considers a bilateral market with two complementary commodities and gives a rationale for Aumann's paradox. The relationship between the notion of strong stability of a syndicate, i.e., the property that no group of players wants to exit or to enter the syndicate, and the notion of disadvantageous syndicates is summarized in two results. If the two sides of the market are balanced in terms of endowments, every syndicate is strongly stable. If the two sides of the market are not balanced in terms of endowments, then being advantageous, in Aumann's definition, is necessary and sufficient for a syndicate to be strongly stable.     

On the core of economies with multilateral environmental externalities

We revisit the cooperative model of coalition formation in economies with environmental externalities. Motivated by recent concerns over the true behavior and incentives of key players in international negotiations over the climate and the environment, we construct a cooperative game where the members of each coalition have uncertainty over the behavior of the nonmembers, and in particular they face uncertainty over their coalition structure. As a result, a coalition assigns various probability distributions over the set of partitions the outsiders can form. We compute the payoff of each coalition under this assumption and we derive conditions under which the core of the induced cooperative game is nonempty.     

The Stability of Hedonic Coalition Structures

We consider the partitioning of a society into coalitions in purely hedonic settings, i.e., where each player's payoff is completely determined by the identity of other members of her coalition. We first discuss how hedonic and nonhedonic settings differ and some sufficient conditions for the existence of core stable coalition partitions in hedonic settings. We then focus on a weaker stability condition: individual stability, where no player can benefit from moving to another coalition while not hurting the members of that new coalition. We show that if coalitions can be ordered according to some characteristic over which players have single-peaked preferences, or where players have symmetric and additively separable preferences, then there exists an individually stable coalition partition. Examples show that without these conditions, individually stable coalition partitions may not exist. We also discuss some other stability concepts, and the incompatibility of stability with other normative properties. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C71, A14, D20.     

ON THE NEUTRALITY OF COALITION FORMATION IN A PURE BARGAINING PROBLEM*

We consider the sequential bargaining game à la Stahl–Binmore–Rubinstein with random proposers, juxtaposing an ex ante coalition formation stage to their bargaining game. On the basis of the expected outcomes in the negotiation over how to split a dollar, players can form coalitions in a sequential manner, within each of which they can redistribute their payoffs. It turns out that the grand coalition does form, and that each player receives his discounted expected payoff, which is obtained by playing as a single player in the negotiation, although there could be many equilibria in the bargaining stage.     

Extensive and strategic forms: Games and models for games

This paper aims to make precise, in the context of epistemic models for games, some relations between the normal or strategic form representation of a game and the extensive or dynamic form representation. It is argued, first, that epistemic models defined for strategic form representations provide all the materials necessary for defining models for corresponding extensive form representations of the game, models that provide information about the way the game is played that is sufficient to evaluate the rationality of the choices that the players make, and are disposed to make, in the course of playing the dynamic game. Second, two definitions of rationality are compared — one for strategy choices in the normal form representation, and one for the individual choices that the player is disposed to make in the course of playing the dynamic game. It is shown that they are essentially equivalent in games with perfect recall. The main focus is on the intuitive foundational assumptions about rationality and dynamic choice that are needed to motivate the definitions. It is argued that to evaluate the rationality of a player's choices in a dynamic context, it is essential to distinguish passive knowledge (knowledge about nature and about the prior beliefs and strategy choices of other players that is based on observation and inference) fromactive knowledge (knowledge about one's own choices and future choices that is grounded in one's decisions).     

Coalitional stability under perfect foresight

Summary. We analyze strategic social environments where coalitions can form through binding or nonbinding agreements and actions of a coalition may impose externalities upon the welfare of the rest of the players. We define a solution concept that (1) captures the perfect foresight of the players that has been overlooked in the literature (e.g., Harsanyi [10] and Chwe [6]) and (2) identifies the coalitions that are likely to form and the “stable” outcomes that will not be replaced by any coalition of rational (and hence farsighted) players. The proposed solution concept thereby offers a notion of agreements and coalition formation in complex social environments. Received: February 12, 1996; revised version: March 3, 1997     

Matching soulmates

We study iterated matching of soulmates (IMS), a recursive process of forming coalitions that are mutually preferred by members to any other coalition containing individuals as yet unmatched by this process. If all players can be matched this way, preferences are IMS-complete. A mechanism is a soulmate mechanism if it allows the formation of all soulmate coalitions. Our model follows Banerjee, Konishi, and Sönmez, except reported preferences are strategic variables. We investigate the incentive and stability properties of soulmate mechanisms. In contrast to prior literature, we do not impose conditions that ensure IMS-completeness. A fundamental result is that, (1) any group of players who could change their reported preferences and mutually benefit does not contain any players who were matched as soulmates and reported their preferences truthfully. As corollaries, (2) for any IMS-complete profile, soulmate mechanisms have a truthful strong Nash equilibrium, and (3) as long as all players matched as soulmates report their preferences truthfully, there is no incentive for any to deviate. Moreover, (4) soulmate coalitions are invariant core coalitions—that is, any soulmate coalition will be a coalition in every outcome in the core. To accompany our theoretical results, we present real-world data analysis and simulations that highlight the prevalence of situations in which many, but not all, players can be matched as soulmates. In the Appendix we relate IMS to other well-known coalition formation processes.     

A game-theoretic model of coalition formation among primates

This paper models the coalition formation process among primates as a sequential game. The population consists of individuals having distinct social ranks which is determined by the individual’s resource holding potential. Each member of the population is interested in gaining access to a food resource, either individually or via a coalition. At any given stage of the game, a player can either propose a specific coalition or he can be proposed to in order to join one. Hence, the strategy of a player consists of a sequence of decisions regarding who to propose to for the formation of a coalition and which proposals to accept or reject. We derive the preferences of the players over the various coalition structures under the assumption that the probability of a coalition to obtain the resource is given by a logistic distribution as a function of relative strengths of the players. We show that, given the primates’ strategic behavior, a variety of different coalition structures can emerge in equilibrium.      

A Theory of Gradual Coalition Formation

We study noncooperative multilateral bargaining games, based on underlying TU games, in which coalitions can renegotiate their agreements. We distinguish between models in which players continue to bargain after implementing agreements ("reversible actions") and models in which players who implement agreements must leave the game ("irreversible actions"). We show that renegotiation always results in formation of the grand coalition if actions are reversible, but that the process may otherwise end with smaller coalitions. On the other hand, we show that the grand coalition cannot form in one step if the core of the game is empty, irrespective of the reversibility of actions.     

Collusive dominant-strategy truthfulness

We show that collusion and wrong beliefs may cause a dramatic efficiency loss in the Vickrey mechanism for auctioning a single good in limited supply. We thus put forward a new mechanism guaranteeing efficiency in a very adversarial collusion model, where the players can partition themselves into arbitrarily many coalitions, exchange money with each other, and perfectly coordinate their actions. Our mechanism bypasses classic impossibility results (such as those of Green and Laffont, and of Schummer) by providing the players with a richer set of strategies, making it dominant for every coalition C to instruct each of its members to report truthfully not only his own valuation, but also his belonging to C. Our mechanism is coalitionally rational, which implies being individually rational for independent players.     

Consistency of beliefs and epistemic conditions for Nash and correlated equilibria

A consistency condition (action-consistency) on the interim beliefs of players in a game is introduced. Action-consistency is weaker than common priors and, unlike common priors, is characterized by a “no-bets” condition on verifiable events. Using action-consistency, we provide epistemic conditions to Nash and correlated equilibria weakening the common knowledge restrictions in Aumann and Brandenburger [Aumann, R., Brandenburger, A., 1995. Epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium. Econometrica 63, 1161–1180] and Aumann [Aumann, R., 1987. Correlated equilibrium as an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica 55, 1–18].     

Large newsvendor games

We consider a game, called newsvendor game, where several retailers, who face a random demand, can pool their resources and build a centralized inventory that stocks a single item on their behalf. Profits have to be allocated in a way that is advantageous to all the retailers. A game in characteristic form is obtained by assigning to each coalition its optimal expected profit. We consider newsvendor games with possibly an infinite number of newsvendors. We prove in great generality results about balancedness of the game, and we show that in a game with a continuum of players, under a nonatomic condition on the demand, the core is a singleton. For a particular class of demands we show how the core shrinks to a singleton when the number of players increases.     

On the Least Core and the Mas-Colell Bargaining Set

We show that the least core of a TU coalitional game with a finite set of players is contained in the Mas-Colell bargaining set. This result is extended to games with a measurable space of players in which the worth of the grand coalition is at least that of any other coalition in the game. As a consequence, we obtain an existence theorem for the Mas-Colell bargaining set in TU games with a measurable space of players. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Number: C71.     

On weighted Kalai–Samet solutions for non-transferable utility coalitional form games

We investigate the implications of the axiom of coalitional concavity for non-transferable utility coalitional form games. This axiom says that if the feasible set of some coalition is uncertain whereas the feasible sets of other coalitions are known, then all players in the coalition with the uncertain feasible set should (weakly) benefit from reaching a compromise before the uncertainty is resolved. By imposing this axiom, in addition to other minor axioms, we characterize the weighted Kalai–Samet [Econometrica 53 (1985) 307] solutions: these solutions coincide with the weighted egalitarian solutions on the domain of bargaining problems, and with the weighted Shapley values on the domain of transferable utility coalitional form games.     

Games of Status

A status game is a cooperative game in which the outcomes are rank orderings of the players. They are a good model for certain situations in which players care about how their "status" compares with that of other players.
We present several formal models within this class. Included are authoritarian status games (where coalitions may assign positions in the rank ordering to nonmembers) and oligarchic status games (where they are unableto do so). We consider the issues of a value concept for authoritarian games and that of core existence for oligarchic games. We then add a transferable resource to the models, obtaining "games of wealth and status."
Finally, we consider an interesting variant, called a "secession game," where coalitions have the right to secede from the grand coalition and form their own smaller "subsocieties," each with its own hierarchy.     

ON MAJORITARIAN BARGAINING WITH INCOMPLETE INFORMATION*

This article studies a finite horizon version of Baron and Ferejohn's (American Political Science Review 83 (1989), 1181–206) majoritarian bargaining with incomplete information. Of many findings, we show that (i) allowing for delay can be optimal for a proposer; (ii) the revelation of a type depends on two conflicting concerns, the “offer” concern à la Spence's signaling (the higher the type the better) and the “coalition inclusion” concern in a majority consent (the lower the type the better); and (iii) players take actions to distinguish themselves via delay, but separating equilibria often fail to exist due to incapability or unprofitability of exercising delay.     

A weak bargaining set for contract choice problems

In this paper, we consider the problem of choosing a set of multi-party contracts, where each coalition of agents has a non-empty finite set of feasible contracts to choose from. We call such problems, contract choice problems. The main result in this paper states that every contract choice problem has a non-empty weak bargaining set. The need for such a solution concept which is considerably weaker than the core arises, since it is well-known that even for very simple contract choice problems, the core may be empty. We also show by means of an example that an analog of the bargaining set due to Mas-Colell [Mas-Colell, A., 1989. An equivalence theorem for a bargaining set. Journal of Mathematical Economics 18, 129–139], as well as the natural analog of the bargaining set due to Aumann and Mashler [Aumann, R., Maschler, M., 1964. The bargaining set for cooperative games. In: Dresher, M., Shapley, L., Tucker, A. (Eds.), Advances in Game Theory. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ] may be empty for contract choice problems.     

Forming and Dissolving Partnerships in Cooperative Game Situations

A group of players in a cooperative game are partners (e.g., as in the form of a union or a joint ownership) if the prospects for cooperation are restricted such that cooperation with players outside the partnership requires the accept of all the partners. The formation of such partnerships through binding agreements may change the game implying that players could have incentives to manipulate a game by forming or dissolving partnerships. The present paper seeks to explore the existence of allocation rules that are immune to this type of manipulation. An allocation rule that distributes the worth of the grand coalition among players is called partnership formation‐proof if it ensures that it is never jointly profitable for any group of players to form a partnership and partnership dissolution‐proof if no group can ever profit from dissolving a partnership. The paper provides results on the existence of such allocation rules for general classes of games as well as more specific results concerning well‐known allocation rules.     

Contests with Alternative Public‐Good Prizes

I study contests in which a society of players compete, by expending irreversible effort, over which one of alternative prizes should be awarded to them by the decision maker. The prizes are public goods and/or public bads for the players. The players choose their effort levels simultaneously and independently. I define each player's valuation spread as the difference between his valuations for the two public‐good/public‐bad prizes. I establish that the players' equilibrium effort levels depend solely on their valuation spreads, and that the players never expend positive effort for both prizes in equilibrium. Further, I establish that in equilibrium only players with the widest positive valuation spread and players with the widest negative valuation spread expend positive effort. Finally, I establish that the equilibrium effort level expended for each prize and the equilibrium total effort level are determined only by the widest positive valuation spread and the widest negative valuation spread.