Applied Mathematics
Vol.06 No.12(2015), Article ID:61468,8 pages
10.4236/am.2015.612182
On the Coalitional Rationality of the Banzhaf Value and Other Non-Efficient Semivalues
Irinel Dragan
University of Texas, Arlington, USA

Copyright © 2015 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY).


Received 28 September 2015; accepted 22 November 2015; published 25 November 2015

ABSTRACT
In the Inverse Set relative to a Semivalue, we are looking for a new game for which the Semivalue of the original game is coalitional rational. The problem is solved by means of the Power Game of the given game. The procedures of building the new game, as well as the case of the Banzhaf Value are illustrated by means of some examples.
Keywords:
Semivalues, Power Game, Power Core, Coalitional Rationality

1. Introduction
In an earlier work of the author [1] , the Inverse Problem for the Shapley Value has been introduced and solved: for whatever n-vector, find out the set of all TU games for which the Shapley Value equals that a priori given vector. In a more recent work [2] , the Inverse Problem was solved for Semivalues, including the Banzhaf Value. Like in the first case, the solution was called the Inverse Set, relative to the Semivalue, and was given by an explicit formula expressing all games associated with that Semivalue, defined by a fixed weight vector. In a recent work [3] , it was also reminded that the Shapley Value, may not be coalitional rational, that is, in general, it does not belong to the Core of the game. In [3] , another problem was introduced and solved: given a TU game, for which we know the Shapley Value, or some other efficient value, find out a game with the same Shapley Value, or the alternative efficient value, but in which the considered value is coalitional rational. For the Shapley Value, in technical words, in the Inverse Set relative to the given Shapley Value, find out a TU game for which this Shapley Value is coalitional rational.
In the present paper, the similar problem is now considered for the Banzhaf Value and the Semivalues, (values introduced in [4] [5] , respectively). These values are usually non-efficient, so that they will not be in the Core; therefore we have to define now what it is a coalitional rational Banzhaf Value, and more general a Semivalue. The main idea will be that of going on the path met in a previous joint work [6] .
Precisely, for each game, we associate a Power Game, relative to the Semivalue, and the value of the original game, efficient in the Power Game, is coalitional rational, if it belongs to the Core of the Power Game, called the Power Core. If the Semivalue happens also to be an efficient one, for the original game, then the Power Game is the game itself, so that the new definition of the coalitional rationality should be extending the definition given above for the efficient values. Note that, on the other hand, the Semivalue of the original game is always efficient in the Power Game, hence in the general case we should discuss only the coalitional rationality. An example with some details will be given for a Banzhaf Value, which is efficient for a particular game.
In the following, the concept of Semivalue as well as the solution of the Inverse Problem for Semivalues, will be sketched in the second section. The concept of Power Game and the solution of the above new problem connected to coalitional rationality will be shown in the third section, where several three person games will also illustrate the results, for some non-efficient Semivalues, defined by a priori given weight vectors.
More remarks, about the efficient values, and the computational means for finding solutions of the problem, will be shown in the last section.
2. The Inverse Set for Semivalues
The set of all cooperative TU games, on a finite set of player N, with two operations, addition and scalar multiplication, is a linear vector space, to be denoted by
, with a dimension of
. In this space of games, the Semivalue of a game
, denoted by
, will be defined by a weight vector
, satisfying some condition of normalization, precisely
(1)
The Semivalue may be extended to the sets of games in
that contain among others the subgames
, of the game
, obtained by restricting this game to the player sets
For the games in such spaces, one defines the restrictions of the weight vector
to the weight vectors
obtained by means of what we call the inverse Pascal triangle property: starting from the given weight vector
, let the weight vectors
be already defined by the formulas
(2)
for 







Among the Semivalues, we have the popular particular cases of the Banzhaf Value, obtained for the weight vectors


together with the weight vectors derived by means of (2).
The first is usually non-efficient, while the second is always efficient. We mean that the Banzhaf Value may be efficient for some games and non-efficient for others, while the Shapley Value is efficient for all games. An example showing the first situation follows.
Example 1: a) Consider the game

By computing the Banzhaf Value via formula (3), with the weight vector


It happened that the two values are equal, a fact discussed in [7] .
For those Semivalues which are efficient, only in the case of some games, there is no need to define again the coalitional rationality.
b) The fact that this may not happen is shown by the game

for the Banzhaf Value, which is a particular Semivalue. With the same weight vector, we find


nality conditions are satisfied. Clearly, we have to discuss also the coalitional rationality for non-efficient Semivalues.
c) The most general case is the one when for some game and some value, both the efficiency and the coalitional rationality conditions do not hold. For example, if we take for the same game (6) the Semivalue defined
by the weight vector
Now, neither the efficiency, nor the coalitional rationality conditions are holding, because the sum of payoffs
makes
does not hold; in other words, the last situation is the general case.
Note that in (6) the Shapley Value is 
Return to the set of games






The Inverse Problem for Semivalues, discussed in [2] , can be stated as follows: find out all TU games in the space 



defined by means of the formulas

and 





for some values of the constant coefficients. In the earlier work, it has been shown the following auxiliary results:

These equalities, as well as the linearity of the Semivalues, shown by formula (3), give 

In [2] , it has been proved that this is the general solution of the Inverse Problem for the considered Semivalue, that is it is offering an explicit expression for the games in the Inverse Set. Note also from (10) that the parenthesis in (11) has a null Semivalue, hence a basis of the null subspace is also shown in (11), namely

with dimension 
3. The Power Game of the Inverse Set and the Coalitional Rationality
For any game





Formula (13) shows a nice interpretation of the Power Game: for each coalition in the original game, the worth of the coalition in the Power Game equals the total win of its members, when they use the value


However, it will be easier to use a computational formula for the Power Core proved also in the same paper [2] ; this will be done next, because we shall compute only the worth of coalitions of size








Now, an arbitrary game in the almost null subfamily of the Inverse Set, relative to the Semivalue

and depends on the parameter




Similarly we obtain

As noticed above, this game belongs to the almost null subfamily of Inverse Set, for any value of the parameter, and we may check that the Semivalue of any game in this family equals the Semivalue of the original game. From (15), based upon the definition (13), we can compute the Power Game of

Instead, the Power Game of 

For

and the efficiency is holding, because we have also

In this way, we almost proved the following main result:
Theorem: Suppose that the Semivalue, associated with a given weight vector


the Semivalue is in the Power Core, if and only if the parameter 

where the minimum is taken over the index
Proof: Taking into account the above formulas (17), (18), for the Power Game, the Power Core is given by

from which the result (20) follows, as the efficiency is obvious. ■
Note that the inequality (20) does not depend on the weight vector and it is the same as in [2] , the case of the Shapley Value and other efficient values. This is not surprising, because this theorem is also applicable to the Shapley Value, as the Shapley Value is a particular Semivalue. Other remarks will be discussed later, for the moment let us illustrate the results contained in the theorem.
Example 2: Consider the same three person game of Example 1a, shown in (5). Compute the Semivalue asso-
ciated with the weight vector

Obviously, the conditions 
makes 1000; hence, it does not belong to the Core, even though the coaltional rationality conditions hold. Compute the characteristic function for all the coalitions of size two in an arbitrary game belonging to the almost null subfamily of the Inverse Set, relative to the Semivalue and to the vector shown in formula (22), by using the formulas (15). We get

We may check that the Semivalue of this game is the same as the one in the original game, for whatever value of the parameter 

where the Semivalue denoted by L, is provided by (22). We have

By taking for example 

where the null worth of the singletons have been omitted. We may check that the Semivalue equals L, and it belongs to the Core of the Power Game for


It follows that the Semivalue of the original game and of the game in the almost null family (26) are coalitional rational as it is in the Core of (27), Hence, the game (26) is a solution for our problem, that is the Semivalue of the original game is coalitional rational, in the above introduced sense. In the next section we shall consider a Semivalue, corresponding to another weight vector, for which neither the efficiency, nor the coalitional rationality will hold, in the original game.
4. Discussion
The following remarks are appropriate:
a) Note that the Semivalue of the Power Game (27) is

not the same as the Semivalue (22), as the Power Game is not in the almost null subfamily of the Inverse Set. Moreover, it does not belong to the Power Core, as it is not efficient, to be easily checked.
b) It is well known that the Semivalues are efficient if and only if they are Shapley Values. Hence, the above theory applies also to the Shapley Value. However, due to the efficiency the Power Game is the game itself, so that after getting the game belonging to the almost null family, we should get the coalitional rationality condi-
tion from this game. Indeed, looking at the games (15), and using the fact that
(17), and from here we obtain (20), which gives the same coalitional rationality condition as in the study of coalitional rationality for efficient values (see [3] ).
c) The above results may be applied to the Banzhaf Value, which is a Semivalue defined by the weights 

Returning to the game in our example 1, where the Banzhaf Value is

that happens to be efficient, and if the parameter is chosen to satisfy (20) with equal sign, 


The Power Game for (31) is

derived from (15), the Banzhaf Value of original game and the value of the parameter
Example 3. Consider the game (6) of example 1c, and the Semivalue with the weight vector

result of the above Theorem. We may check that this Semivalue is neither efficient, nor coalitional rational.
From formula (20) we see that the Semivalue will be coalitional rational if we have

satisfy the above inequality. Now, find out a game in the almost null subset of the Inverse Set, from formula (15),
where we take
This game is

From formulas (17), (18), we compute the Power Game and we obtain the game

We see that the Semivalue is efficient in the Power Game (34) of the Game (33) and we check easily that it is also coalitional rational; hence (33) is the solution of our problem.
d) An interesting case is the case of the Binomial Semivalues, a class of Semivalues introduced in [8] , and discussed in [9] .
5. Conclusion
The present work is a continuation of our earlier work [2] , on the Inverse Problem of Semivalues. By discussing the new problem of the game with the same value, but coalitional rational, we believe that we give also a motivation for the concept of Inverse Set. We introduced this new problem and we offered an explicit numerical procedure for solving the problem, as seen in the examples that are following the theory given above. A nice introduction is the case of efficient values considered in [3] , as well as the application to the case of Binomial Semivalues shown in [9] .
Cite this paper
IrinelDragan, (2015) On the Coalitional Rationality of the Banzhaf Value and Other Non-Efficient Semivalues. Applied Mathematics,06,2069-2076. doi: 10.4236/am.2015.612182
References
- 1. Dragan, I. (1991) The Potential Basis and the Weighted Shapley Value. Libertas Mathematica, 11, 139-146.
- 2. Dragan, I. (2005) On the Inverse Problem for Semivalues of Cooperative TU Games. IJPAM, 4, 545-561.
- 3. Dragan, I. (2014) On the Coalitional Rationality of the Shapley Value and Other Efficient Values. AJOR, 4, 228-234.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajor.2014.44022 - 4. Banzhaf, J.F. (1965) Weighted Voting Doesn’t Work: A Mathematical Analysis. Rutgers Law Review, 19, 317-343.
- 5. Dubey, P., Neyman, A. and Weber, R.J. (1981) Value Theory without Efficiency. Mathematics of Operations Research, 6, 122-128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/moor.6.1.122 - 6. Dragan, I. and Martinez-Legaz, J.E. (2001) On the Semivalues and the Power Core of Cooperative TU Games. IGTR, 3, 127-139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s0219198901000324 - 7. Dragan, I. (1996) On Some Relationships between the Shapley Value and the Banzhaf Value. Libertas Mathematica, 16, 31-42.
- 8. Puente, M.A. (2000) Contributions to the Representability of Simple Games and to the Calculus of Solutions for This Class of Games. Ph.D. Thesis, Technical University of Catalonia.
- 9. Dragan, I. (2014) Coalitional Rationality and the Inverse Problem for Binomial Semivalues, In: Petrosjan, L. and Zenkevich, N., Eds., Contributions to Game Theory and Management, Vol. 7, 24-33.




