IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v323y2025i3p966-974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Copeland ratio ranking method for abstract decision problems

Author

Listed:
  • Han, Weibin
  • Deemen, Adrian Van

Abstract

This paper deals with the problem of ranking a finite number of alternatives on the basis of a dominance relation. We firstly investigate some disadvantages of the Copeland ranking method, of the degree ratio ranking method and of the modified degree ratio ranking method which were characterized by using clone properties and classical axiomatic properties. Then, we introduce some alternative axiomatic properties and propose a new ranking method which is defined by the Copeland ratio of alternatives (i.e., the Copeland score of an alternative divided by its total degree). We show that this proposed ranking method coincides with the Copeland ranking method, the degree ratio ranking method and the modified degree ratio ranking method for abstract decision problems with complete and asymmetric dominance relations. Subsequently, we prove that this new ranking method is able to overcome the mentioned disadvantages of these ranking methods. After that, we provide a characterization for the Copeland ratio ranking method using the introduced axiomatic properties.

Suggested Citation

  • Han, Weibin & Deemen, Adrian Van, 2025. "The Copeland ratio ranking method for abstract decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 323(3), pages 966-974.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:323:y:2025:i:3:p:966-974
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2024.12.042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221724009846
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2024.12.042?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. László Csató, 2019. "Some Impossibilities of Ranking in Generalized Tournaments," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(01), pages 1-15, March.
    2. Baback Vaziri & Shaunak Dabadghao & Yuehwern Yih & Thomas L. Morin, 2018. "Properties of sports ranking methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(5), pages 776-787, May.
    3. Petróczy, Dóra Gréta, 2021. "An alternative quality of life ranking on the basis of remittances," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    4. Pavel Yu. Chebotarev & Elena Shamis, 1998. "Characterizations of scoring methodsfor preference aggregation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 299-332, January.
    5. Brink, René van den & Rusinowska, Agnieszka, 2021. "The degree ratio ranking method for directed graphs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 563-575.
    6. 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.
    7. Csató, László & Tóth, Csaba, 2020. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 309-320.
    8. Julio González-Díaz & Ruud Hendrickx & Edwin Lohmann, 2014. "Paired comparisons analysis: an axiomatic approach to ranking methods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 139-169, January.
    9. Bouyssou, Denis, 1992. "Ranking methods based on valued preference relations: A characterization of the net flow method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 61-67, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Kenneth J. Arrow & Herve Raynaud, 1986. "Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511754, December.
    12. László Csató, 2017. "On the ranking of a Swiss system chess team tournament," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 254(1), pages 17-36, July.
    13. Bouyssou, D. & Perny, P., 1992. "Ranking methods for valued preference relations : A characterization of a method based on leaving and entering flows," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1-2), pages 186-194, August.
    14. Felix Brandt & Paul Harrenstein, 2010. "Characterization of dominance relations in finite coalitional games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 233-256, August.
    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. Devriesere, Karel & Csató, László & Goossens, Dries, 2025. "Tournament design: A review from an operational research perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 324(1), pages 1-21.
    2. 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.
    3. Csató, László & Tóth, Csaba, 2020. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 309-320.
    4. van den Brink, René & Rusinowska, Agnieszka, 2022. "The degree measure as utility function over positions in graphs and digraphs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 1033-1044.
    5. Daniela Bubboloni & Michele Gori, 2018. "The flow network method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 621-656, December.
    6. Rene van den Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska, "undated". "The Degree Ratio Ranking Method for Directed Networks," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-026/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Csató, László, 2019. "Journal ranking should depend on the level of aggregation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    8. Csató, László, 2017. "European qualifiers to the 2018 FIFA World Cup can be manipulated," MPRA Paper 82652, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Brink, René van den & Rusinowska, Agnieszka, 2021. "The degree ratio ranking method for directed graphs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(2), pages 563-575.
    10. 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.
    11. Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & Csaba Mihálykó & László Gyarmati, 2024. "Evaluating the capacity of paired comparison methods to aggregate rankings of separate groups," 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. 32(1), pages 109-129, March.
    12. Arlegi, Ritxar & Dimitrov, Dinko, 2020. "Fair elimination-type competitions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(2), pages 528-535.
    13. René van den Brink & Agnieszka Rusinowska, 2017. "The degree measure as utility function over positions in networks," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01592181, HAL.
    14. van den Brink, René & Rusinowska, Agnieszka, 2024. "Degree centrality, von Neumann–Morgenstern expected utility and externalities in networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 319(2), pages 669-677.
    15. repec:hal:pseptp:halshs-04188289 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Ágoston, Kolos Csaba & Csató, László, 2022. "Inconsistency thresholds for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    17. Monsuur, Herman, 2005. "Characterizations of the 3-cycle count and backward length of a tournament," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(3), pages 778-784, August.
    18. Fernandez, Eduardo & Leyva, Juan Carlos, 2004. "A method based on multiobjective optimization for deriving a ranking from a fuzzy preference relation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 110-124, April.
    19. Petróczy, Dóra Gréta, 2021. "An alternative quality of life ranking on the basis of remittances," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    20. László Csató, 2018. "Characterization of the Row Geometric Mean Ranking with a Group Consensus Axiom," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 1011-1027, December.
    21. Fernandes, Rosário & Furtado, Susana, 2022. "Efficiency of the principal eigenvector of some triple perturbed consistent matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(3), pages 1007-1015.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:ejores:v:323:y:2025:i:3:p:966-974. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.