arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

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

Miguel Ángel Mirás Calvo et al.

TOP - Transactions in Operations Research2025https://doi.org/10.1007/s11750-025-00704-3article
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Abstract 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.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11750-025-00704-3

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{miguel2025,
  title        = {{On how the rules that extend the concede-and-divide principle differ for pairs of claimants}},
  author       = {Miguel Ángel Mirás Calvo et al.},
  journal      = {TOP - Transactions in Operations Research},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11750-025-00704-3},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

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

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.