IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2306.17546.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Two characterizations of the dense rank

Author

Listed:
  • Jos'e Luis Garc'ia-Lapresta
  • Miguel Mart'inez-Panero

Abstract

In this paper, we have considered the dense rank for assigning positions to alternatives in weak orders. If we arrange the alternatives in tiers (i.e., indifference classes), the dense rank assigns position 1 to all the alternatives in the top tier, 2 to all the alternatives in the second tier, and so on. We have proposed a formal framework to analyze the dense rank when compared to other well-known position operators such as the standard, modified and fractional ranks. As the main results, we have provided two different axiomatic characterizations which determine the dense rank by considering position invariance conditions along horizontal extensions (duplication), as well as through vertical reductions and movements (truncation, and upwards or downwards independency).

Suggested Citation

  • Jos'e Luis Garc'ia-Lapresta & Miguel Mart'inez-Panero, 2023. "Two characterizations of the dense rank," Papers 2306.17546, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2306.17546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.17546
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, John H, 1973. "Aggregation of Preferences with Variable Electorate," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 41(6), pages 1027-1041, November.
    2. Ronan Congar & Vincent Merlin, 2012. "A characterization of the maximin rule in the context of voting," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 131-147, January.
    3. Duncan Black, 1976. "Partial justification of the Borda count," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Kaveh Madani & Laura Read & Laleh Shalikarian, 2014. "Voting Under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Framework for Analyzing Group Decision Making Problems," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1839-1856, May.
    5. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 621-637, June.
    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. Rodríguez Alcantud, José Carlos & de Andrés Calle, Rocío & González-Arteaga, Teresa, 2013. "Codifications of complete preorders that are compatible with Mahalanobis disconsensus measures," MPRA Paper 50533, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Alessandro Albano & José Luis García-Lapresta & Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2023. "A family of distances for preference–approvals," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 323(1), pages 1-29, April.
    3. Cascón, J.M. & González-Arteaga, T. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2019. "Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-41.
    4. Vincent Merlin & İpek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 63-78, February.
    5. Matías Núñez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(2), pages 421-441, February.
    6. Adiel T. de Almeida-Filho & Madson B. S. Monte & Danielle C. Morais, 2017. "A Voting Approach Applied to Preventive Maintenance Management of a Water Supply System," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 523-546, May.
    7. Matias Nunez & M. Remzi Sanver, 2021. "On the subgame perfect implementability of voting rules," Post-Print hal-03341697, HAL.
    8. Ignacio Contreras, 2010. "A Distance-Based Consensus Model with Flexible Choice of Rank-Position Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 441-456, September.
    9. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David & Wakker, Peter P., 2002. "Utility in Case-Based Decision Theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 483-502, August.
    10. Bock, Hans-Hermann & Day, William H. E. & McMorris, F. R., 1998. "Consensus rules for committee elections," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 219-232, May.
    11. Aleksandras KRYLOVAS & Natalja KOSAREVA & Edmundas Kazimieras ZAVADSKAS, 2016. "Statistical Analysis of KEMIRA Type Weights Balancing Methods," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 0(3), pages 19-39, September.
    12. Burak Can & Peter Csoka & Emre Ergin, 2017. "How to choose a non-manipulable delegation?," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 1713, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    13. Federica Ceron & Stéphane Gonzalez, 2019. "A characterization of Approval Voting without the approval balloting assumption," Working Papers halshs-02440615, HAL.
    14. Núñez, Matías & Sanver, M. Remzi, 2017. "Revisiting the connection between the no-show paradox and monotonicity," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 9-17.
    15. Merlin, Vincent & Valognes, Fabrice, 2004. "The impact of indifferent voters on the likelihood of some voting paradoxes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 343-361, November.
    16. Yuni Xu & Xiang Fu & Xuefeng Chu, 2019. "Analyzing the Impacts of Climate Change on Hydro-Environmental Conflict-Resolution Management," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(4), pages 1591-1607, March.
    17. László Csató, 2023. "A comparative study of scoring systems by simulations," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 24(4), pages 526-545, May.
    18. González-Arteaga, T. & Alcantud, J.C.R. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2016. "A cardinal dissensus measure based on the Mahalanobis distance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 575-585.
    19. Aki Lehtinen, 2007. "The Borda rule is also intended for dishonest men," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 133(1), pages 73-90, October.
    20. Barberà, Salvador & Bossert, Walter & Moreno-Ternero, Juan D., 2023. "Wine rankings and the Borda method," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 122-138, May.

    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:arx:papers:2306.17546. 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.