An Allocation Value of Cooperative Game with Communication Structure and Intuitionistic Fuzzy Coalitions

  • Jie YangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 1082)


At present, the researches on the cooperative games mainly based on the hypothesis that arbitrary coalitions can be formed and the fuzzy coalitions are Aubin’s form. However, it is always not true in reality. This paper defines a cooperative game with communication structure and intuitionistic fuzzy coalition, in which the partners have some hesitation degrees and different risk preferences when they take part in limited coalitions. There are lower and upper participation degrees of players in coalitions by introducing confidence levels to intuitionistic fuzzy coalitions. Then a formula of average tree solution (short called AT solution) for this cooperative game is proposed based on the defined preference weighted form by taking account of players’ risk preferences, and the existence of the solution according to axioms system is proved. Finally, the effectiveness of this method is demonstrated by a practical example of profit allocation. This research extends the cooperative game with fuzzy coalitions, and integrates individual preferences information of players in cooperation.


Graph cooperative games Fuzzy coalition Average tree solution Intuitionistic fuzzy number Risk preference 



This research was partially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71572040, 71601049), the Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (No. 19YJC630201), the Project for Ecological Civilization Research of Fujian Social Science Research Base (Nos. KXJD1813A, KXJD1837A), the Program for Distinguished Young Scholars in University of Fujian Province (No. K80SCC55A), and the Project of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University (No. XJQ201635). We appreciate the comments and suggestions will give by the reviewers and editor of this journal.


  1. 1.
    Myerson, R.B.: Graphs and cooperation in games. Math. Oper. Res. 2, 225–229 (1977)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meng, F., Tian, D.: The Banzhaf value for fuzzy games with a coalition structure. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 14(1), 22–34 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernández, J.R., Gallego, I., Jiménez-Losada, A., Ordóñez, M.: Cooperation among agents with a proximity relation. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250(2), 555–565 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Li, X., Sun, H., Hou, D.: On the position value for communication situations with fuzzy coalition. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 33(1), 113–124 (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herings, P.J.J., Van Der Laan, G., Talman, D.: The average tree solution for cycle-free graph games. Games Econ. Behav. 62(1), 77–92 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Talman, D., Yamamoto, Y.: Average tree solution and subcore for acyclic graph games. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn. 51(3), 203–212 (2008)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herings, P.J.J., van der Laan, G., Talman, A.J.J., Yang, Z.: The average tree solution for cooperative games with communication structure. Games Econ. Behav. 68(2), 626–633 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van den Brink, R., Herings, P.J.J., van der Laan, G., Talman, D.J.J.: The average tree permission value for games with a permission tree. Econ. Theory 58(1), 99–123 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mishra, D., Talman, A.J.J.: A characterization of the average tree solution for tree games. Int. J. Game Theory 39(1–2), 105–111 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aubin, J.P.: mathematical methods of game and economic theory. Stud. Math. Appl. 235(1), 19–30 (1982)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jiménez-Losada, A., Fernández, J.R., Ordóñez, M.: Myerson values for games with fuzzy communication structure. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 213(3), 74–90 (2013)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xu, G., Li, X., Sun, H., Su, J.: The Myerson value for cooperative games on communication structure with fuzzy coalition. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 33(1), 27–39 (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basallote, M., Hernández-Mancera, C., Jiménez-Losada, A.: A new Shapley value for games with fuzzy coalitions. Fuzzy Sets Syst. (2019).
  14. 14.
    Atanassov, K.T.: Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20(1), 87–96 (1986)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li, D.F.: Decision and Game Theory in Management with Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fodor, J.C., Roubens, M.R.: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support. Springer, Dordrecht (2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li, K.W., Inohara, T., Xu, H.: Coalition analysis with preference uncertainty in group decision support. Appl. Math. Comput. 231, 307–319 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin, J., Meng, F., Chen, R.Q., Zhang, Q.: Preference attitude-based method for ranking intuitionistic fuzzy numbers and its application in renewable energy selection. Complexity 1, 1–14 (2018)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Murofushi, T., Sugeno, M.: An interpretation of fuzzy measures and the Choquet integral as an integral with respect to a fuzzy measure. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 29(2), 201–227 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tsurumi, M., Tanino, T., Inuiguchi, M.: A Shapley function on a class of cooperative fuzzy games. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 129(3), 596–618 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yager, R.R.: OWA aggregation over a continuous interval argument with applications to decision making. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part B 34(5), 1952–1963 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lin, J., Jiang, Y.: Some hybrid weighted averaging operators and their application to decision making. Inf. Fusion 16(1), 18–28 (2014)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of ManagementFujian Agriculture and Forestry UniversityFuzhouChina

Personalised recommendations