<p>In the context of conflicting claims problems, the Talmud, adjusted proportional, random arrival, minimal overlap, and average-of-awards rules are well-known extensions of the two-claimant concede-and-divide rule to larger populations. We analyze how the awards recommended by these rules for each couple of claimants differ from what they would receive if the concede-and-divide principle were applied to distribute among them their joint payoff. To compare the behavior of these rules for pairs of claimants, we rely on geometric features of the corresponding two-dimensional paths of awards. We study properties pertaining to the impact, in absolute and relative terms, that one claimant leaving the problem has on the awards of the remaining claimants.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

On how the rules that extend the concede-and-divide principle differ for pairs of claimants

  • Miguel Ángel Mirás Calvo,
  • Iago Núñez Lugilde,
  • Carmen Quinteiro Sandomingo,
  • Estela Sánchez-Rodríguez

摘要

In the context of conflicting claims problems, the Talmud, adjusted proportional, random arrival, minimal overlap, and average-of-awards rules are well-known extensions of the two-claimant concede-and-divide rule to larger populations. We analyze how the awards recommended by these rules for each couple of claimants differ from what they would receive if the concede-and-divide principle were applied to distribute among them their joint payoff. To compare the behavior of these rules for pairs of claimants, we rely on geometric features of the corresponding two-dimensional paths of awards. We study properties pertaining to the impact, in absolute and relative terms, that one claimant leaving the problem has on the awards of the remaining claimants.