| paper | d4-journals-mss-2016-0032 |
| authors | — |
| venue | ? |
| filed under | unclassified |
| judged by | gpt-6-luna / xhigh (triple__luna__xhigh__c6r1) |
| judge confidence | high |
| authors would recognise it | no |
The named propositions are axiomatic characterizations, an axiom incompatibility, or identities among values; none makes a computational claim about finding or deciding an allocation. Proposition 13 is the closest candidate, but its potential identity is not an algorithmic result or a complexity statement. The paper therefore has no qualifying result to mirror, so bit (a) fails.
fails bit a — no named computational result to mirror
No results are covered: Propositions 4–5, 7, and 9–13 characterize values or potentials under axioms; Proposition 6 shows axiom incompatibility. None states a computational guarantee.
I can’t make an honest positive case under the required anchor rule. The paper’s numbered results are axiomatic characterizations and impossibility results, not computational results asserting a problem is in P, hard, FPT, or otherwise computationally classified.
Proposition 13 is the closest-looking candidate: proved here, it says the nullified potential is unique, equals the Hart–Mas-Colell potential, and has the Shapley value as its discrete derivative under nullification. But that is an identity about values and axioms, not a computational result about an underlying problem. The other propositions likewise characterize values or show that certain axioms cannot be jointly satisfied.
A continuum of players could be imagined, but making it the paper’s mirror would turn its axiomatic questions into continuous-population axiomatic questions. That is outside ChoCo’s stated scope, and it would not supply a qualifying anchor from this paper.
The proponent offers no anchor to defeat; it withdraws the positive case. That is the strongest case against a ChoCo mirror here: the paper’s numbered propositions characterize values under axioms or establish that axioms are incompatible. None classifies the complexity of a computational problem. Proposition 13 is the closest candidate, but it identifies the nullified potential with the Hart–Mas-Colell potential and the Shapley value with its nullification derivative. That is an axiomatic identity, not an algorithmic result. Proposition 6’s impossibility is an axiom incompatibility, not computational hardness.
A plausible population setting—such as a large workforce divided into cohorts with common contributions—could support a continuous cooperative-game model. But the paper’s questions would remain axiomatic. Nullifying a single agent in an atomless population also has no effect if the game depends only on population mass; nullifying a whole cohort could be meaningful, but that changes the operation and the game domain. Either way, it supplies no computational question from this paper for ChoCo to classify.
One could devise a new complexity problem around computing allocations from a succinct description of a game. The paper does not formulate that problem or establish a result about it, so it would be a new research direction rather than a continuous mirror. The honest limit of this negative case is that no scenario can be ruled out as worthwhile in the abstract. The case is strong for the narrower conclusion that this paper provides no qualifying ChoCo anchor.
The adversarial triple: the proponent anchors on up to three named results; the opponent sees that case and must defeat every anchor; the judge decides which case convinced it. These are the pipeline’s own outputs, generated by tools/triple_run.py — no human edited them. The paper’s own text is not reproduced here beyond the quoted statement above.