IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2101.05744.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations

Author

Listed:
  • L'aszl'o Csat'o

Abstract

Scoring rules aggregate individual rankings by assigning some points to each position in each ranking such that the total sum of points provides the overall ranking of the alternatives. They are widely used in sports competitions consisting of multiple contests. We study the tradeoff between two risks in this setting: (1) the threat of early clinch when the title has been clinched before the last contest(s) of the competition take place; (2) the danger of winning the competition without finishing first in any contest. In particular, four historical points scoring systems of the Formula One World Championship are compared with the family of geometric scoring rules, recently proposed by an axiomatic approach. The schemes used in practice are found to be competitive with respect to these goals, and the current rule seems to be a reasonable compromise close to the Pareto frontier. Our results shed more light on the evolution of the Formula One points scoring systems and contribute to the issue of choosing the set of point values.

Suggested Citation

  • L'aszl'o Csat'o, 2021. "A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations," Papers 2101.05744, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2022.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2101.05744
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.05744
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shmuel Nitzan & Ariel Rubinstein, 1981. "A further characterization of Borda ranking method," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 153-158, January.
    2. László Csató, 2020. "Optimal Tournament Design: Lessons From the Men’s Handball Champions League," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 21(8), pages 848-868, December.
    3. Vincent Merlin, 2003. "The axiomatic characterization of majority voting and scoring rules," Post-Print halshs-00069506, HAL.
    4. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    5. Graves T. & Reese C.S. & Fitzgerald M., 2003. "Hierarchical Models for Permutations: Analysis of Auto Racing Results," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 282-291, January.
    6. Pavel Yu. Chebotarev & Elena Shamis, 1998. "Characterizations of scoring methodsfor preference aggregation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 299-332, January.
    7. Stein, William E. & Mizzi, Philip J. & Pfaffenberger, Roger C., 1994. "A stochastic dominance analysis of ranked voting systems with scoring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 78-85, April.
    8. Alejandro Corvalan, 2018. "How to rank rankings? Group performance in multiple-prize contests," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(2), pages 361-380, August.
    9. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Peña, Teresa, 2013. "Aggregating preferences rankings with variable weights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 230(2), pages 348-355.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Csató, László, 2021. "Pontozási rendszerek szimulációs összehasonlítása [A simulatory comparison of the points systems]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 847-862.
    2. László Csató, 2023. "A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 526-545, May.
    3. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2020. "Positionalist voting rules: a general definition and axiomatic characterizations," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 85-116, June.
    4. Aleksei Y. Kondratev & Alexander S. Nesterov, 2020. "Measuring majority power and veto power of voting rules," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 187-210, April.
    5. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    6. Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Bernard De Baets, 2017. "Recursive Monotonicity of the Scorix: Borda Meets Condorcet," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 793-813, July.
    7. O. Volij & M. Mahajne, 2020. "Pairwise Consensus And The Borda Rule," Working Papers 2016, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    8. António Osório, 2017. "Judgement and ranking: living with hidden bias," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 501-518, June.
    9. Paolo Viappiani, 2024. "Volumetric Aggregation Methods for Scoring Rules with Unknown Weights," Post-Print hal-04440153, HAL.
    10. Kelly, Jerry S. & Qi, Shaofang, 2019. "Balancedness of social choice correspondences," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 59-67.
    11. Eyal Baharad & Leif Danziger, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule is Optimal?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6851, CESifo.
    12. Baharad, Eyal & Danziger, Leif, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?," IZA Discussion Papers 11287, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Pivato, Marcus, 2013. "Variable-population voting rules," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 210-221.
    14. Walter Bossert & Kotaro Suzumura, 2017. "The greatest unhappiness of the least number," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 49(3), pages 637-655, December.
    15. László Csató, 2019. "An impossibility theorem for paired comparisons," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 497-514, June.
    16. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2020. "Axioms for Defeat in Democratic Elections," Papers 2008.08451, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2023.
    17. Pivato, Marcus, 2014. "Formal utilitarianism and range voting," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 50-56.
    18. Martin Lackner & Piotr Skowron, 2017. "Consistent Approval-Based Multi-Winner Rules," Papers 1704.02453, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2019.
    19. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2016. "Judgement and Ranking: Living with Hidden Bias," Working Papers 2072/267264, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    20. Wesley H. Holliday & Eric Pacuit, 2023. "An extension of May's Theorem to three alternatives: axiomatizing Minimax voting," Papers 2312.14256, arXiv.org.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2101.05744. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.