Skip to main content
Log in

Partition decision trees: representation for efficient computation of the Shapley value extended to games with externalities

  • Published:
Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While coalitional games with externalities model a variety of real-life scenarios of interest to computer science, they pose significant game-theoretic and computational challenges. Specifically, key game-theoretic solution concepts—and the Shapley value in particular—can be extended to games with externalities in multiple, often orthogonal, ways. As for the computational challenges, while there exist two concise representations for coalitional games with externalities—called embedded MC-Nets and weighted MC-Nets—they allow the polynomial-time computation of only two of the six existing direct extensions of the Shapley values to games with externalities. In this article, inspired by the literature on endogenous coalition formation protocols, we propose to represent games with externalities in a way that mimic an intuitive process in which coalitions might form. To this end, we utilize Partition Decision Trees—rooted directed trees, where non-leaf nodes are labelled with agents’ names, leaf nodes are labelled with payoff vectors, and edges indicate membership of agents in coalitions. Interestingly, despite their apparent differences, the representation based on partition decision trees can be considered a subclass of embedded MC-Nets and weighted MC-Nets. The key advantage of this new representation is that it allows the polynomial-time computation of five out of six direct extensions of the Shapley value to games with externalities. In other words, by focusing on narrower Partition Decision Trees instead of wider embedded or weighted MC-Nets, a user is guaranteed to compute most extensions of the Shapley value in polynomial time.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A recent overview of various extensions of the Shapley value to games with externalities, including the comparison of axiomatizations they satisfy, can be found in [60].

  2. See also the work by Greco et al. [26].

  3. We also mention the work by Michalak et al. [42] that considers some alternative (non game-theoretic) ways to define and represent externalities in multi-agent systems.

  4. Although the Partition Decision Trees representation is less concise than both MC-Nets representations, we can argue that there exist subclasses of Embedded and Weighted MC-Nets that we can concisely represent. See Sect. 7 for more details.

  5. This axiom is sometimes called Anonymity. However, we use the naming consistent with several classical work from the literature [50, 54, 70], including Shapley’s original work, and most of the literature on games with externalities [10, 35, 60].

  6. This translation of Additivity is consistent with the works by Bolger [10], Macho-Stadler et al. [35], McQuillin [38], and Skibski [60].

  7. Note that this condition implies that moving agent i from T to \(T'\), where \(\{T,T'\} \subseteq P {\setminus } S\), does not affect the value of S. This is because \(v(S_{-i}, \tau _i^T(P)) = v(S,P) = v(S_{-i}, \tau _i^{T'}(P))\).

  8. Note that the Open Membership Game is a Non-Transferable Utility cooperative game with externalities, i.e., the values of embedded coalitions are a priori divided among the agents.

  9. Note that if i is a null-player in v, then creating a game without i is straightforward, as values of all embedded coalitions obtained by inserting agent i into \((S, P) \in EC(N {\setminus } \{i\})\) are equal. For example, game \(v_{-i}\) can be defined as follows: \(v_{-i}(S, P) {\mathop {=}\limits ^{{\mathrm {def}}}}v(S, P \cup \{\{i\}\})\) for every \((S, P) \in EC(N {\setminus } \{i\})\).

  10. Note that both fractions may differ: as we demonstrate in Example 11, if \((S, P) = (\{c\}, \{\{a, b\}, \{c\}\})\) and \(K = \{d\}\), then the former evaluates to \(\frac{2}{5}\), but the later to \(\frac{5}{15}\). Thus, indeed, the HY-value does not satisfy the Null-Player Out Axiom.

  11. We use a definition of succinctness from the field of formal language theory, e.g., [14]—we thank an anonymous editor for pointing us to this definition.

  12. The erratum to Michalak et al. [41] in English can be found in Michalak et al. [39] available at www.mimuw.edu.pl/~tpm/.

References

  1. Aadithya, K. V., Michalak, T. P., & Jennings, N. R. (2011). Representation of coalitional games with algebraic decision diagrams. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1121–1122).

  2. Aziz, H., Brandt, F., & Harrenstein, P. (2010). Monotone cooperative games and their threshold versions. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1107–1114).

  3. Aziz, H., Cahan, C., Gretton, C., Kilby, P., Mattei, N., & Walsh, T. (2016). A study of proxies for Shapley allocations of transport costs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 56, 573–611.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Aziz, H., & De Keijzer, B. (2011). Complexity of coalition structure generation. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 191–198).

  5. Aziz, H., Lachish, O., Paterson, M., & Savani, R. (2009). Wiretapping a hidden network. In Proceedings of the 5th workshop on internet and network economics (WINE) (pp. 438–446). Berlin: Springer.

  6. Bachrach, Y., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2008). Coalitional skill games. In Proceedings of the 7th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1023–1030).

  7. Bachrach, Y., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2009). Power in threshold network flow games. Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, 18(1), 106–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bloch, F. (1995). Endogenous structures of association in oligopolies. The RAND Journal of Economics, 26, 537–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bloch, F. (1996). Sequential formation of coalitions in games with externalities and fixed payoff division. Games and Economic Behavior, 14(1), 90–123.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolger, E. M. (1989). A set of axioms for a value for partition function games. International Journal of Game Theory, 18(1), 37–44.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Boufkhad, Y., Gregoire, E., Marquis, P., Mazure, B., & Sais, L. (1997). Tractable cover compilations. In Proceedings of the 15th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 122–127). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

  12. Chalkiadakis, G., Elkind, E., & Wooldridge, M. (2011). Computational aspects of cooperative game theory. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, 5(6), 1–168.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Conitzer, V., & Sandholm, T. (2006). Complexity of constructing solutions in the core based on synergies among coalitions. Artificial Intelligence, 170(6), 607–619.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Coste-Marquis, S., Lang, J., Liberatore, P., & Marquis, P. (2004). Expressive power and succinctness of propositional languages for preference representation. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR) (pp. 203–212). New York: AAAI Press.

  15. Darwiche, A. (1999). Compiling knowledge into decomposable negation normal form. In IJCAI (Vol. 99, pp. 284–289). London: CiteseerX.

  16. Darwiche, A., & Marquis, P. (2002). A knowledge compilation map. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 17, 229–264.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. De Clippel, G., & Serrano, R. (2008). Marginal contributions and externalities in the value. Econometrica, 76(6), 1413–1436.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Dechter, R., & Rish, I. (1994). Directional resolution: The Davis–Putnam procedure, revisited. In J. Doyle, E. Sandewall, & P. Torasso (Eds.), Principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (pp. 134–145). London: Elsevier.

  19. Deng, X., & Papadimitriou, C. H. (1994). On the complexity of cooperative solution concepts. Mathematics of Operations Research, 19(2), 257–266.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Derks, J. J., & Haller, H. H. (1999). Null players out? Linear values for games with variable supports. International Game Theory Review, 1(03n04), 301–314.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Di Bartolomeo, G., Engwerda, J., Plasmans, J., & Van Aarle, B. (2006). Staying together or breaking apart: Policy-makers’ endogenous coalitions formation in the european economic and monetary union. Computers and Operations Research, 33(2), 438–463.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Dunne, P.E. (2005). Multiagent resource allocation in the presence of externalities. In M. Pěchouček, P. Petta, & L. Z. Varga (Eds.), Multi-agent systems and applications IV (pp. 408–417). Berlin: Springer.

  23. Elkind, E., Goldberg, L. A., Goldberg, P. W., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). Computational complexity of weighted threshold games. In Proceedings of the 20th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 718–723).

  24. Elkind, E., Goldberg, L. A., Goldberg, P. W., & Wooldridge, M. (2009). A tractable and expressive class of marginal contribution nets and its applications. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 55(4), 362–376.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Friedman, J. (1982). Oligopoly theory. Handbook of Mathematical Economics, 2, 491–534.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  26. Greco, G., Malizia, E., Palopoli, L., & Scarcello, F. (2009). On the complexity of compact coalitional games. In Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 147–152).

  27. Hu, C. C., & Yang, Y. Y. (2010). An axiomatic characterization of a value for games in partition function form. SERIEs, 1(4), 475–487.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Ichimura, R., Hasegawa, T., Ueda, S., Iwasaki, A., & Yokoo, M. (2011). Extension of MC-net-based coalition structure generation: Handling negative rules and externalities. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1173–1174).

  29. Ieong, S., & Shoham, Y. (2005). Marginal contribution nets: A compact representation scheme for coalitional games. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on electronic commerce (ACM-EC) (pp. 193–202).

  30. Keijzer, B. (2014). Externalities and cooperation in algorithmic game theory. Ph.D. thesis. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.

  31. Kern, W., & Paulusma, D. (2003). Matching games: The least core and the nucleolus. Mathematics of Operations Research, 28(2), 294–308.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. King, I. (2015). Apple and Samsung are friendly again, and the competition should be terrified. New York: Bloomberg.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kleinberg, J., Papadimitriou, C. H., & Raghavan, P. (2001). On the value of private information. In Proceedings of the 8th conference on theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK) (pp. 249–257). Los Altos: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

  34. Liao, X., Koshimura, M., Fujita, H., & Hasegawa, R. (2012). Solving the coalition structure generation problem with maxsat. In 2012 IEEE 24th international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI) (Vol. 1, pp. 910–915).

  35. Macho-Stadler, I., Pérez-Castrillo, D., & Wettstein, D. (2007). Sharing the surplus: An extension of the Shapley value for environments with externalities. Journal of Economic Theory, 135(1), 339–356.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Maleki, S. (2015). Addressing the computational issues of the Shapley value with applications in the smart grid. Ph.D. thesis. Southampton: University of Southampton.

  37. Maschler, M., Solan, E., & Zamir, S. (2013). Game theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. McQuillin, B. (2009). The extended and generalized Shapley value: Simultaneous consideration of coalitional externalities and coalitional structure. Journal of Economic Theory, 144(2), 696–721.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Michalak, T. P. (2016). Erratum to: Computational aspects of extending the Shapley value to coalitional games with externalities. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.

  40. Michalak, T. P., Marciniak, D., Szamotulski, M., Rahwan, T., Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., & Jennings, N. R. (2010). A logic-based representation for coalitional games with externalities. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 125–132).

  41. Michalak, T. P., Rahwan, T., Marciniak, D., Szamotulski, M., & Jennings, N. R. (2010). Computational aspects of extending the Shapley value to coalitional games with externalities. In Proceedings of the 19th European conference on artificial intelligence (ECAI) (pp. 197–202).

  42. Michalak, T. P., Rahwan, T., Sroka, J., Dowell, A., Wooldridge, M., McBurney, P., & Jennings, N. R. (2009). On representing coalitional games with externalities. In J. Chuang, L. Fortnow, P. Pu, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on electronic commerce (ACM-EC) (pp. 11–20).

  43. Moretti, S., & Patrone, F. (2008). Transversality of the Shapley value. Top, 16(1), 1–41.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Myerson, R. B. (1977). Values of games in partition function form. International Journal of Game Theory, 6, 23–31.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Nash, J. (1953). Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 21, 128–140.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Oh, J. (2009). Multiagent social learning in large repeated games. Ph.D. thesis. College Park: University of Maryland.

  47. Pham Do, K. H., & Norde, H. (2007). The Shapley value for partition function form games. International Game Theory Review, 9(02), 353–360.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  48. Rahwan, T., Michalak, T. P., Wooldridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (2012). Anytime coaliton structure generation in multi-agent systems with positive or negative externalities. Artificial Intelligence, 186, 95–122.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Rosenschein, J. S., & Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of encounter: Designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Roth, A. E. (1988). The Shapley value: Essays in honor of Lloyd S. Shapley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  51. Rundshagen, B. (2002). On the formalization of open membership in coalition formation games. Fernuniversität.

  52. Sakurai, Y., Ueda, S., Iwasaki, A., Minato, S. I., & Yokoo, M. (2011). A compact representation scheme of coalitional games based on multi-terminal zero-suppressed binary decision diagrams. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on principles of practice in multi-agent systems (PRIMA) (pp. 4–18).

  53. Sandholm, T., Larson, K., Andersson, M., Shehory, O., & Tohmé, F. (1999). Coalition structure generation with worst case guarantees. Artificial Intelligence, 111(1–2), 209–238.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Shapley, L. S. (1953). A value for n-person games. In H. Kuhn & A. Tucker (Eds.), Contributions to the theory of games (Vol. II, pp. 307–317). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Skibski, O. (2010). Obliczanie wartości Shapleya rozszerzonej do gier koalicyjnych z efektami zewnȩtrznymi. Master’s thesis. Warsaw: University of Warsaw.

  56. Skibski, O. (2011). Steady marginality: A uniform approach to Shapley value for games with externalities. In Proceeding of 4th symposium on algorithmic game theory, LNCS (Vol. 6982, pp. 130–142).

  57. Skibski, O. (2020). Complexity of computing the Shapley value in games with externalities. In Proceedings of the 34th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI).

  58. Skibski, O., & Michalak, T. (2020). Fair division in the presence of externalities. International Journal of Game Theory,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00182-019-00682-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Skibski, O., Michalak, T. P., Sakurai, Y., Wooldridge, M., & Yokoo, M. (2015). A graphical representation for games in partition function form. In Proceedings of the 29th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 1036–1042).

  60. Skibski, O., Michalak, T. P., & Wooldridge, M. (2018). The Stochastic Shapley value for games with externalities. Games and Economic Behavior, 108, 65–80.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Thrall, R. M., & Lucas, W. F. (1963). N-person games in partition function form. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 10, 281–298.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Tran-Thanh, L., Nguyen, T. D., Rahwan, T., Rogers, A., & Jennings, N. R. (2013). An efficient vector-based representation for coalitional games. In Proceedings of the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 383–389).

  63. Uckelman, J., Chevaleyre, Y., Endriss, U., & Lang, J. (2009). Representing utility functions via weighted goals. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, 55(4), 341–361.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  64. Uckelman, J., & Endriss, U. (2010). Compactly representing utility functions using weighted goals and the max aggregator. Artificial Intelligence, 174(15), 1222–1246.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  65. Wooldridge, M. (2009). An introduction to multiagent systems. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Wooldridge, M., & Dunne, P. E. (2006). On the computational complexity of coalitional resource games. Artificial Intelligence, 170(10), 835–871.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Yi, S., & Shin, H. (1995). Endogenous formation of coalitions in oligopoly. Dartmouth College Department of Economics WP No. 95-2.

  68. Yi, S. S. (2003). Endogenous formation of economic coalitions: A survey on the partition function approach. In C. Carraro (Ed.), The endogenous formation of economic coalitions (pp. 80–127). London: Edward Elgar.

  69. Yokoo, M., Conitzer, V., Sandholm, T., Ohta, N., & Iwasaki, A. (2005). Coalitional games in open anonymous environments. In Proceedings of the 18th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (Vol. 5, pp. 509–514).

  70. Young, H. P. (1985). Monotonic solutions of cooperative games. International Journal of Game Theory, 14(2), 65–72.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is an extended version of [59] with a number of new technical results. Specifically, we provided the complete proofs for Theorems 1 and 3. We also added the algorithms for computing the five extensions of the Shapley value to games with externalities in polynomial time (Algorithms 1–5). We introduced the entire Sect. 7, where we compared in detail Partition Decision Trees to Embedded and Weighted MC-Nets. This section contains the following new technical results: Proposition 5 (comparing PDT to Embedded MC-Nets), Algorithm 6 (that transforms the set of PDT rules to set of Embedded MC-Nets rules), Proposition 7 (comparing PDT to Weighted MC-Nets), Corollary 1 (how concise PDT can be w.r.t. Weighted MC-Nets). Finally, we added Sect. 2 with the related work. Oskar Skibski and Makoto Yokoo were supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant (24220003). Tomasz Michalak and Michael Wooldridge were supported by the European Research Council under Advanced Grant 291528 (“RACE”). Yuko Sakurai and Makoto Yokoo were partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grants (17H00761) and (18H03299) and JST SICORP JPMJSC1607. This work was also supported by the Polish National Science Center grants 2013/09/D/ST6/03920 and 2015/19/D/ST6/03113.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oskar Skibski.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix: Summary of the main notation

Appendix: Summary of the main notation

N :

The set of agents. Also, the grand coalition

\(i, a,b,c, \ldots \) :

The agents from N

v :

A game in the partition function form

\(\hat{v}\) :

A game in the characteristic function form

S :

A coalition, \(S \subseteq N\)

\(\mathscr {P}(N)\) :

The set of all partitions of the players in N

P :

A partition from \(\mathscr {P}(N)\)

(SP):

A coalition S embedded in partition P

EC(N):

The set of all embedded coalitions

\((\varphi _i(v))_{i \in N}\) :

A value of game v

\(\varOmega (N)\) :

The set of all permutations of N

\(\omega \) :

A permutation from \(\varOmega (N)\)

\(S_i^{\omega }\) :

The set of agents that appear in permutation \(\omega \) after i

\(v_e^{(S, P)}\) :

An elementary game in which only (SP) has non-zero value

\(\varPsi (N)\) :

The set of all games in which only coalitions in a single partition have non-zero values

\(\varphi ^{EF}_i(v)\) :

The externality-free value, EF-value [17, 47]

\(\varphi ^{MQ}_i(v)\) :

The McQuillin value, MQ-value [38, 56]

\(\varphi ^{SS}_i(v)\) :

The Stochastic Shapley value, SS-value [35, 60]

\(\varphi ^{HY}_i(v)\) :

The Hu-Yang value, HY-value  [27]

\(\varphi ^{MY}_i(v)\) :

The Myerson value, MY-value  [44]

T :

A PDT rule

\(\mathscr {T}\) :

A set of PDT rules

V :

A set of nodes

u :

A node from V

E :

A set of edges

\(f_V\) :

A label function for internal nodes

\(f_E\) :

A label function for edges

\(f_L\) :

A label function for leaf nodes

\(\varPi (T)\) :

The set of paths from the root to any leaf in T

\(\pi \) :

A path from \(\varPi (T)\)

\(v^{\pi }\) :

The game described by the PDT path \(\pi \)

\(v^{T}\) :

The game described by the PDT rule T

\(v^{\mathscr {T}}\) :

The game described by the set of PDT rules \(\mathscr {T}\)

xy:

Real numbers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Skibski, O., Michalak, T.P., Sakurai, Y. et al. Partition decision trees: representation for efficient computation of the Shapley value extended to games with externalities. Auton Agent Multi-Agent Syst 34, 11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-019-09429-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-019-09429-7

Keywords

Navigation