A ranking method based on handicaps
AbstractRanking methods are fundamental tools in many areas. Popular methods aggregate the statements of `experts' in different ways. As such, there are various reasonable ranking methods, each one of them more or less adapted to the environment under consideration.This paper introduces a new method, called the handicap-based method, and characterizes it through appealing properties. This method assigns not only scores to the items but also weights to the experts. Scores and weights form an equilibrium for a relationship based on the notion of handicaps. The method is, in a sense made precise in the paper, the counterpart to the counting method in environments that require intensity-invariance. Intensity-invariance is a desirable property when the intensity of the experts' statements has to be controlled. Otherwise, both the counting and handicap-based methods satisfy a property called homogeneity, which is a desirable property when cardinal statements matter, as is the case in many applications.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Econometric Society in its journal Theoretical Economics.
Volume (Year): (Forthcoming)
Issue (Month): ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://econtheory.org
Ranking; scores; invariant method; peers' method; handicap; scaling matrix;
Other versions of this item:
- D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
- D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- de Clippel, Geoffroy & Moulin, Herve & Tideman, Nicolaus, 2008. "Impartial division of a dollar," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 176-191, March.
- Liebowitz, S J & Palmer, J P, 1984. "Assessing the Relative Impacts of Economic Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 77-88, March.
- Giora Slutzki & Oscar Volij, 2006. "Scoring of web pages and tournaments—axiomatizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 75-92, January.
- Leo Katz, 1953. "A new status index derived from sociometric analysis," Psychometrika, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 39-43, March.
- Michel Balinski & Gabrielle Demange, 1989. "An Axiomatic Approach to Proportionality between Matrices," Post-Print hal-00686748, HAL.
- Woeginger, Gerhard J., 2008. "An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 224-232, September.
- Gabrielle Demange, 2012. "On the influence of a ranking system," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 431-455, July.
- René van den Brink & Robert P. Gilles, 0000.
"The Outflow Ranking Method for Weighted Directed Graphs,"
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers
06-044/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- van den Brink, René & Gilles, Robert P., 2009. "The outflow ranking method for weighted directed graphs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(2), pages 484-491, March.
- AMIR, Rabah, 2002. "Impact-adjusted citations as a measure of journal quality," CORE Discussion Papers 2002074, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Martin J. Osborne).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.