A characterization of voting power for discrete weight distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weighted voting games model decision-making bodies where decisions are made by a majority vote. In such games, each agent has a weight, and a coalition of agents wins the game if the sum of the weights of its members exceeds a certain quota. The Shapley value is used as an index for the true power held by the agents in such games. Earlier work has studied the implications of setting the value of the quota on the agents' power under the assumption that the game is given with a fixed set of agent weights. We focus on a model where the agent weights originate from a stochastic process, resulting in weight uncertainty. We analyze the expected effect of the quota on voting power given the weight generating process. We examine two extreme cases of the balls and bins model: uniform and exponentially decaying probabilities. We show that the choice of a quota may have a large influence on the power disparity of the agents, even when the governing distribution is likely to result in highly similar weights for the agents. We characterize various interesting repetitive fluctuation patterns in agents' power as a function of the quota.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".