IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sochwe/v57y2021i1d10.1007_s00355-020-01301-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Small one-dimensional Euclidean preference profiles

Author

Listed:
  • Jiehua Chen

    (TU Wien)

  • Sven Grottke

    (TU Berlin)

Abstract

We characterize one-dimensional Euclidean preference profiles with a small number of alternatives and voters. We show that every single-peaked preference profile with two voters is one-dimensional Euclidean, and that every preference profile with up to five alternatives is one-dimensional Euclidean if and only if it is both single-peaked and single-crossing. By the work of Chen et al. (Social Choice and Welfare 48(2):409–432, 2017), we thus obtain that the smallest single-peaked and single-crossing preference profiles that are not one-dimensional Euclidean consist of three voters and six alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiehua Chen & Sven Grottke, 2021. "Small one-dimensional Euclidean preference profiles," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 117-144, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:57:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s00355-020-01301-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-020-01301-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00355-020-01301-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00355-020-01301-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bredereck, Robert & Chen, Jiehua & Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2016. "Are there any nicely structured preference profiles nearby?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 61-73.
    2. Jiehua Chen & Kirk R. Pruhs & Gerhard J. Woeginger, 2017. "The one-dimensional Euclidean domain: finitely many obstructions are not enough," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 409-432, February.
    3. Steven J. Brams & Michael A. Jones & D. Marc Kilgour, 2002. "Single-Peakedness and Disconnected Coalitions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 14(3), pages 359-383, July.
    4. Roberts, Kevin W. S., 1977. "Voting over income tax schedules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 329-340, December.
    5. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Laslier, Jean-Francois, 2007. "Euclidean preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 87-98, February.
    6. Marie-Louise Lackner & Martin Lackner, 2017. "On the likelihood of single-peaked preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 717-745, April.
    7. Robert Bredereck & Jiehua Chen & Gerhard Woeginger, 2013. "A characterization of the single-crossing domain," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 989-998, October.
    8. Knoblauch, Vicki, 2010. "Recognizing one-dimensional Euclidean preference profiles," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-5, January.
    9. Miguel Ballester & Guillaume Haeringer, 2011. "A characterization of the single-peaked domain," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 36(2), pages 305-322, February.
    10. Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Spatial Models of Party Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(2), pages 368-377, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jiehua Chen & Martin Nollenburg & Sofia Simola & Anais Villedieu & Markus Wallinger, 2022. "Multidimensional Manhattan Preferences," Papers 2201.09691, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jiehua Chen & Kirk R. Pruhs & Gerhard J. Woeginger, 2017. "The one-dimensional Euclidean domain: finitely many obstructions are not enough," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 409-432, February.
    2. Edith Elkind & Piotr Faliszewski & Piotr Skowron, 2020. "A characterization of the single-peaked single-crossing domain," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 167-181, January.
    3. Jiehua Chen & Martin Nollenburg & Sofia Simola & Anais Villedieu & Markus Wallinger, 2022. "Multidimensional Manhattan Preferences," Papers 2201.09691, arXiv.org.
    4. Bredereck, Robert & Chen, Jiehua & Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2016. "Are there any nicely structured preference profiles nearby?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 61-73.
    5. Smeulders, B., 2018. "Testing a mixture model of single-peaked preferences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 101-113.
    6. Nathann Cohenn & Edith Elkind & Foram Lakhani, 2019. "Single-crossing Implementation," Papers 1906.09671, arXiv.org.
    7. Marie-Louise Lackner & Martin Lackner, 2017. "On the likelihood of single-peaked preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(4), pages 717-745, April.
    8. Chambers, Christopher P. & Echenique, Federico, 2020. "Spherical preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    9. Alexander Karpov, 2017. "Preference Diversity Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 753-774, July.
    10. Alexander Karpov, 2019. "On the Number of Group-Separable Preference Profiles," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 501-517, June.
    11. Bogomolnaia, Anna & Laslier, Jean-Francois, 2007. "Euclidean preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 87-98, February.
    12. Barberà, Salvador & Moreno, Bernardo, 2011. "Top monotonicity: A common root for single peakedness, single crossing and the median voter result," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 345-359.
    13. Eguia, Jon X., 2011. "Foundations of spatial preferences," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 200-205, March.
    14. Slinko, Arkadii & Wu, Qinggong & Wu, Xingye, 2021. "A characterization of preference domains that are single-crossing and maximal Condorcet," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    15. Puppe, Clemens & Slinko, Arkadii, 2022. "Maximal Condorcet domains: A further progress report," Working Paper Series in Economics 159, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    16. Tanguiane, Andranick S., 2022. "Analysis of the 2021 Bundestag elections. 2/4. Political spectrum," Working Paper Series in Economics 152, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Economics and Management.
    17. Gopakumar Achuthankutty & Souvik Roy, 2018. "On single-peaked domains and min–max rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 753-772, December.
    18. Mor Nitzan & Shmuel Nitzan & Erel Segal-Halevi, 2018. "Flexible level-1 consensus ensuring stable social choice: analysis and algorithms," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(3), pages 457-479, March.
    19. Puppe, Clemens, 2018. "The single-peaked domain revisited: A simple global characterization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 55-80.
    20. Alexander Karpov, 2020. "The likelihood of single-peaked preferences under classic and new probability distribution assumptions," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(4), pages 629-644, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:sochwe:v:57:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s00355-020-01301-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.