Fair Allocation of Production Externalities: Recent Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review recent results from the axiomatic theory of cost sharing. A method of sharing divides the total cost of a service between users based on the profile of their consumption and the cost function. In general, the total cost depends on asymmetrically individual consumption. We discuss two radically different normative interpretations of these asymmetries. According to the theory of full responsibility, each user is responsible for the cost resulting unquestionably its own supply and the cost shares must then reflect asymmetries of the cost function. According to the theory of partial responsibility, only the differences in the level of consumption may justify different cost share. We formulate the requirements of fairness and strategic stability through axioms of invariance and monotony. We examine the logical consistency of these axioms in the two theories above. In the approach of full responsibility, they allow us to characterize the three methods most often discussed in the literature: the Shapley and Shubik, the Aumann and Shapley and the classic serial method. In the context of partial responsibility, they lead to natural methods of proportional representation, and a variant of the serial method.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".