Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfallsApplicationsFrequently asked🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Game Theory›Shapley Value
Machine learningGame-theoretic

Shapley Value

Shapley Value for Coalition Games · Also known as: Fair Division, Cooperative Game Solution, Dividend Vector

The Shapley Value is a solution concept for coalition games that distributes total payoff fairly among players based on their marginal contributions to coalitions. Introduced by Lloyd Shapley in 1953, the Shapley Value is the unique payoff distribution that satisfies four intuitive axioms: efficiency (total payoff is distributed), symmetry (identical players receive equal payoff), null player (players contributing nothing receive nothing), and additivity across games.

ScholarGate
  1. Machine learning
  2. v1
  3. 2 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Shapley Value
Nash EquilibriumPrincipal-Agent ModelTop Trading CyclesVCG MechanismTwo-Level Game AnalysisVoting Power Index Analy…

When to use it

Use the Shapley Value when fairly distributing joint payoffs from coalition formation, such as profit sharing in partnerships, credit allocation in research teams, or valuing individual contributions to ensemble models. Use when players have heterogeneous contributions and no market prices reveal individual value. Appropriate when seeking an axiomatically justified fair division that satisfies basic equitable principles.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Axiomatically unique: only division satisfying efficiency, symmetry, null player, and additivity axioms
  • Fair and theoretically grounded: reflects each player's average marginal contribution across coalitions
  • Flexible: applies to any cooperative game where coalition values are well-defined
  • Decomposable: can be used with any valuation function, including probabilistic and weighted versions
Limitations
  • Computationally expensive: requires enumerating all 2^n coalitions for n players; infeasible for large n
  • Requires complete information: coalition values must be known in advance for all subsets
  • May not satisfy individual rationality: some players could earn more outside the grand coalition
  • Non-unique in multiple coalition games: when many coalitions are feasible, determining which forms is ambiguous

Frequently asked

Why is the Shapley Value unique?

Because it is the only payoff distribution satisfying four intuitive axioms: (1) Efficiency (all payoff distributed), (2) Symmetry (identical players get equal payoff), (3) Null player (zero-contribution players get nothing), and (4) Additivity (payoffs combine across games). These axioms uniquely determine the value.

How does Shapley Value handle games where the grand coalition does not form?

The Shapley Value assumes the grand coalition forms and distributes its payoff v(N). If coalitions other than the grand coalition might form, the Shapley Value does not directly address coalition structure stability; other game-theoretic concepts (core, bargaining) are needed.

Can the Shapley Value be negative?

Yes. If a player's average marginal contribution across coalitions is negative (they reduce total payoff), their Shapley Value is negative. This can occur in games with externalities or negative synergies.

Sources

  1. Shapley, L. S. (1953). A value for n-person games. In H. W. Kuhn & A. W. Tucker (Eds.), Contributions to the Theory of Games II (pp. 307-317). Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400881970-018 ↗
  2. Roth, A. E. (1988). The Shapley value as a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility. Econometrica, 56(4), 745-794. link ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Shapley Value for Coalition Games. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/game-theory/shapley-value

Related methods

Nash EquilibriumPrincipal-Agent ModelTop Trading CyclesVCG Mechanism

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • Nash EquilibriumGame Theory↔ compare
  • Principal-Agent ModelGame Theory↔ compare
  • Top Trading CyclesGame Theory↔ compare
  • VCG MechanismGame Theory↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Referenced by

Nash EquilibriumPrincipal-Agent ModelTwo-Level Game AnalysisVoting Power Index Analysis

Similar methods

Shapley Decomposition of InequalitySHAPVoting Power Index AnalysisExplainable Random ForestExplainable Gradient BoostingExplainable XGBoostTop Trading CyclesExplainable LightGBM

Related reference concepts

Game Theory for AgentsGame Theory and Bargaining TheoryDecision Theory and UtilityCooperative GamesNoncooperative GamesMechanism Design

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — Shapley Value (Shapley Value for Coalition Games). Retrieved 2026-07-21 from https://scholargate.app/en/game-theory/shapley-value · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Lloyd Shapley
Subfamily
Game-theoretic
Year
1953
Type
algorithm
Related methods
Nash EquilibriumPrincipal-Agent ModelTop Trading CyclesVCG Mechanism
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account