- Walter Trockel added an answer:5Equivalence relation in TU gamesHow do you define an equivalence relation over the set of imputations in a TU game?
The set of imputations is generally already understood as representing certain utility allocations to the players.So the question would be whose utility function ( proposed in answer 2) one has in mind.It could be a social planer.If he would be, for inctance, a Nash planner he would consider all imputations equivalent that have the same Nash product (=product of players´ payoffs).An equivalence class would be a set of imputations " equalyy desirable" for that social planner.Following
- Charles Kalinzi added an answer:8Does anyone know the newest model for allocating collaborative profit in chain supply?
Based on the cooperative game theory there are several well know profit allocation concepts including Proportional allocation, Shapley value and Nucleous. I am looking for another new allocation method, does anyone can recommend me an article about new model?
Have you tried allocation of gains in a purchasing consortia.....they could be of help by Fredo Schotanus from University of TwenteFollowing
- Amina Yagoubi added an answer:5Has anybody ever come across a high-level (cross-discipline) taxonomy of cooperation?
Cooperation is an important topic in all social sciences and quite a few natural ones. Some of those have taxonomies (typologies, classification schemes, whatever you want to call them) of the different types of cooperation in THEIR discipline. E.g. economists/management theorists have different types of cooperation between companies (e.g. for 'strategic alliances - ranging from consortia to M&A; or from contractual to transactional arrangements, etc.). Ecologists talk about mutualism, commensalism, etc. And I can go on and on. I've also been surprised that I have not been able to find this in the disciplines where I would have expected to find this. Game theorists have thought deeply about the nature of strategic interaction, but apparently less about the different TYPES of cooperation. To network scientists, a node seems to be 'just' a node and an 'edge' just an edge. Public choice scholars look a lot at aggregating individual choices, but again I haven't found any systematic treatment of the types of cooperative choices.
My question: has anybody ever come across an attempt to derive some taxonomic principles ACROSS these disciplines? Whereby we try to lift these discipline-specific classification schemes of types of cooperation between THEIR units to a higher level of abstraction in order to explore what a taxonomy of cooperation 'primitives' might look like. The idea would be to then explore which 'types' within this taxonomy occur more 'in the wild', what their pros and cons are.
Any pointers to any relevant literature would be greatly appreciated. And if you are genuinely interested in this, please do drop me a note and I will then invite you to the collaborative online space where we are exploring these issues in more detail. Thanks!
You may find helpful in the Art Worlds by Howard S. Becker and https://www.sfu.ca/cmns/courses/2011/488/1-Readings/Becker_SocialTypesofArtists.pdfFollowing
- Sergey V. Popov added an answer:2What are the common group tasks that people use in experiments?
Does anyone know what are the common group tasks that people use in their experiments? Tasks where performance can be easily evaluated objectively? I found in literature Michigan State University Distributed Dynamic Decision Making (MSU-DDD), but could not find the modified version for research. Does anyone have this game or know other games that I can use in research? Thanks!
I was thinking about doing an experiment in teamwork efficiency, and the only thing that came to my mind is jigsaw puzzle solving: how much faster would a team of 2 solve the given 300-piece puzzle against team of 3, or something. You need something that is easy to parallelize, but that would require some interaction. My suspicion is that the good teamwork games would also be the games where individual effort is hard to quantify...Following
- Closed account added an answer:4What is the difference between Nash Equilibrium and Nash Bargaining Solution?I'm considering a cooperative game where players want to share resources in a fair manner.
nash equilibrium is a concept in non-cooperative game theory which is not the realm you are working in.
in non-cooperative game theory, instead of considering what should be (eg, the solution should not change when the point of view change...), the player acts according to his own incentive.
In general, NE is the outcome if
- players are rational.
- and the rationality is commonly known.Following
- José Paes Santana added an answer:1Can anyone help with time token method by Arends?Time token method is a cooperative learning method.
Hello Sir BouJaoude,
Thank you for the valuable information!
- Surajit Borkotokey asked a question:OpenIs anyone working on Network under Bi-cooperative framework?Bi-cooperative games are generalizations of voting games with abstention...Mathematically one can talk about Bi-cooperative networks however one needs a concrete example. I am trying to get one. If anybody is interested please share your experience.Following
About Cooperative Games
In game theory, a cooperative game is a game where groups of players ("coalitions") may enforce cooperative behaviour, hence the game is a competition between coalitions of players, rather than between individual players. An example is a coordination game, when players choose the strategies by a consensus decision-making process.