Core Stability and Nash Stability in k-Tiered Coalition Formation Games | SpringerLink
Skip to main content

Core Stability and Nash Stability in k-Tiered Coalition Formation Games

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 15248))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 76 Accesses

Abstract

The problem of \(\boldsymbol{k}\)-tiered coalition formation games (\(\boldsymbol{k}\)-TCFGs) has been considered for ranking members of a stochastic, intransitive round robin tournament, with the restriction that the ordering must have exactly \(\boldsymbol{k}\) nonempty ranks for some integer \(\boldsymbol{k}\). As with other coalition formation games, an outcome of a \(\boldsymbol{k}\)-TCFG may be evaluated for its stability, using the notions of Nash stability or core stability. An outcome is Nash stable if no one agent can move to a more preferable position, either by forming its own coalition or joining an existing one. An outcome is core stable if no set of agents can form a new coalition such that all agents in the set benefit. Previous research on \(\boldsymbol{k}\)-TCFGs has focused on preferences derived from matchups, and has indicated that, under these matchup-oriented preferences, core stable outcomes may be significantly easier to find than Nash stable outcomes. However, the extent of this trend has not been explored. Here, we prove that for a key subset of \(\boldsymbol{k}\)-TCFGs with matchup-oriented preferences, there is always at least one core stable partition. We include an illustration of the difference between Nash stabilizability and core stabilizability on an example game. We introduce a preference notation that can be used to represent any preference framework for \(\boldsymbol{k}\)-TCFGs, and prove that under the subset of \(\boldsymbol{k}\)-TCFGs which this notation can represent within polynomial space, the problem of determining if a game has a Nash stable list is NP-complete.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 6634
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
JPY 8293
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See http://www.ija-usa.com/jouster-certification-ranking.html for the true part of this.

  2. 2.

    For instance, a Pareto optimal partition is necessarily contractually individually stable. Neither of these properties feature in this work, so they will not be defined here.

  3. 3.

    This property at \(k=n\) has not been explicitly stated for k-TCFGs in previous work, but follows trivially from results found by Siler in the paper that introduced TCFGs [1].

  4. 4.

    Such penalties are typically recorded as a price of stability [14], price of anarchy [15], core price of stability [16], or core price of anarchy, but these measurements are designed for games in which stable outcomes cannot have negative total utilities, which is not the case for k-TCFGs.

References

  1. Siler, C.: Tiered coalition formation games. In: The International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, vol. 30, pp. 210–214 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arnold, N., Goldsmith, J., Snider, S.: Extensions to tiered coalition formation games. In: The International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, vol. 35 (2022). https://doi.org/10.32473/flairs.v35i.130708

  3. Akin, E.: Generalized intransitive dice: mimicking an arbitrary tournament. J. Dyn. Games 8(1), 1–20 (2020)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Saarinen, S., Tovey, C.A., Goldsmith, J.: A model for intransitive preferences. In: Workshops at the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arnold, N., Snider, S., Goldsmith, J.: Socially conscious stability for tiered coalition formation games. Ann. Math. Artif. Intell. (2023). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10472-023-09897-4

  6. Bullinger, M.: Pareto-optimality in cardinal hedonic games. In: AAMAS, vol. 20, pp. 213–221 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Waxman, N., Kraus, S., Hazon, N.: On maximizing egalitarian value in kcoalitional hedonic games. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.10772 (2020)

  8. Bogomolnaia, A., Jackson, M.O.: The stability of hedonic coalition structures. Games Econom. Behav. 38(2), 201–230 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Banerjee, S., Konishi, H., Sonmez, T.: Core in a simple coalition formation game. Soc. Choice Welfare 18, 135–153 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Brandl, F., Brandt, F., Strobel, M.: Fractional hedonic games: individual and group stability. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 1219–1227 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Schlueter, J., Goldsmith, J.: Super altruistic hedonic games. In: The International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, vol. 33, pp. 160–165 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Spradling, M., Goldsmith, J.: Stability in role based hedonic games. In: The International FLAIRS Conference Proceedings, vol. 28, pp. 85–90 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Karp, R.M.: Reducibility among combinatorial problems. In: Complexity of Computer Computations (1972). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2001-2_9

  14. Anshelevich, E., Dasgupta, A., Kleinberg, J., Tardos, É., Wexler, T., Roughgarden, T.: The price of stability for network design with fair cost allocation. SIAM J. Comput. 38(4), 1602–1623 (2008)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Koutsoupias, E., Papadimitriou, C.: Worst-case equilibria. In: Meinel, C., Tison, S. (eds.) STACS 1999. LNCS, vol. 1563, pp. 404–413. Springer, Heidelberg (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-49116-3_38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Monaco, G., Moscardelli, L., Velaj, Y.: Stable outcomes in modified fractional hedonic games. Auton. Agent. Multi-Agent Syst. 34(1), 4 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Arnold .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Ethics declarations

Declarations

\(\bullet \) Materials availability: A copy of the code used in the investigation in Section 4 is available at: https://github.com/naroarnold/ktcfg-nash-core.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2025 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Arnold, N., Goldsmith, J. (2025). Core Stability and Nash Stability in k-Tiered Coalition Formation Games. In: Freeman, R., Mattei, N. (eds) Algorithmic Decision Theory. ADT 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 15248. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73903-3_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73903-3_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-73902-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-73903-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics