Advertisement

Mathematical Methods of Operations Research

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 181–202 | Cite as

Cost allocation protocols for supply contract design in network situations

  • Stefano Moretti
  • Stef Tijs
  • Rodica Branzei
  • Henk Norde
Original Article

Abstract

The class of Construct and Charge (CC-) rules for minimum cost spanning tree (mcst) situations is considered. CC-rules are defined starting from the notion of charge systems, which specify particular allocation protocols rooted on the Kruskal algorithm for computing an mcst. These protocols can be easily implemented in practical network situations (for instance, in supply transportation networks), are flexible to changes in the network situation and meet the requirement of continuous monitoring by the agents involved. Special charge systems, that we call conservative, lead to a subclass of CC-rules that coincides with the class of obligation rules for mcst situations.

Keywords

Cost allocation Minimum cost spanning tree games Cost monotonicity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bird CG (1976) On cost allocation for a spanning tree: a game theoretic approach. Networks 6: 335–350zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Branzei R, Moretti S, Norde H, Tijs S (2004) The P-value for cost sharing in minimum cost spanning tree situations. Theory and Decis 56: 47–61zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Dutta B, Kar A (2004) Cost monotonicity, consistency and minimum cost spanning tree games. Games Econ Behav 48: 223–248zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Feltkamp V, Tijs S, Muto S (1994a) Minimum cost spanning extension problems: the proportional rule and the decentralized rule. CentER DP 1994 nr.96, Tilburg University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. Feltkamp V, Tijs S, Muto S (1994b) On the irreducible core and the equal remaining obligations rule of minimum cost spanning extension problems. CentER DP 1994 nr.106, Tilburg University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  6. Kruskal JB (1956) On the shortest spanning subtree of a graph and the traveling salesman problem. Proc Am Math Soc 7: 48–50CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Norde H, Moretti S, Tijs S (2004) Minimum cost spanning tree games and population monotonic allocation schemes. Eur J Oper Res 154: 84–97zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Prim RC (1957) Shortest connection networks and some generalizations. Bell Syst Tech J 36: 1389–1401Google Scholar
  9. Sharkey WW (1995) Network models in economics. In: Ball MO, Magnanti TL, Monma CL, Nemhauser GL(eds) Network routing. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 713–765Google Scholar
  10. Tijs S, Branzei R, Moretti S, Norde H (2006a) Obligation rules for minimum cost spanning tree situations and their monotonicity properties. Eur J Oper Res 175: 121–zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Tijs S, Moretti S, Branzei R, Norde H (2006b) The Bird core for minimum cost spanning tree problems revisited: monotonicity and additivity aspects. In: (eds) Lectures Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 563. Springer, Berlin, pp 305–322Google Scholar
  12. Voß S, Schneidereit G (2002) Interdependencies between supply contracts and transaction costs. In: Seuring S, Goldbach M(eds) Cost management in supply chains. Springer, Berlin, pp 255–274Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Moretti
    • 1
  • Stef Tijs
    • 2
    • 4
  • Rodica Branzei
    • 3
  • Henk Norde
    • 4
  1. 1.Unit of Molecular EpidemiologyNational Cancer Research Institute of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly
  3. 3.Faculty of Computer ScienceAlexandru Ioan Cuza UniversityIasiRomania
  4. 4.CentER and Department of Econometrics and Operations ResearchTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations