IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jmvana/v96y2005i2p352-373.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cycle-transitive comparison of independent random variables

Author

Listed:
  • De Schuymer, B.
  • De Meyer, H.
  • De Baets, B.

Abstract

The discrete dice model, previously introduced by the present authors, essentially amounts to the pairwise comparison of a collection of independent discrete random variables that are uniformly distributed on finite integer multisets. This pairwise comparison results in a probabilistic relation that exhibits a particular type of transitivity, called dice-transitivity. In this paper, the discrete dice model is generalized with the purpose of pairwisely comparing independent discrete or continuous random variables with arbitrary probability distributions. It is shown that the probabilistic relation generated by a collection of arbitrary independent random variables is still dice-transitive. Interestingly, this probabilistic relation can be seen as a graded alternative to the concept of stochastic dominance. Furthermore, when the marginal distributions of the random variables belong to the same parametric family of distributions, the probabilistic relation exhibits interesting types of isostochastic transitivity, such as multiplicative transitivity. Finally, the probabilistic relation generated by a collection of independent normal random variables is proven to be moderately stochastic transitive.

Suggested Citation

  • De Schuymer, B. & De Meyer, H. & De Baets, B., 2005. "Cycle-transitive comparison of independent random variables," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 352-373, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jmvana:v:96:y:2005:i:2:p:352-373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047-259X(04)00219-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Garcia-Lapresta, Jose Luis & Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2001. "Majority decisions based on difference of votes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 463-481, June.
    2. B. De Schuymer & H. De Meyer & B. De Baets & S. Jenei, 2003. "On the Cycle-Transitivity of the Dice Model," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 261-285, May.
    3. Bhaskar Dutta & Jean-Francois Laslier, 1999. "Comparison functions and choice correspondences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 16(4), pages 513-532.
    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. B. Schuymer & H. Meyer & B. baets, 2007. "Extreme Copulas and the Comparison of Ordered Lists," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 62(3), pages 195-217, May.
    2. Gong, Zaiwu & Guo, Weiwei & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique & Gong, Zejun & Wei, Guo, 2020. "Consistency and consensus modeling of linear uncertain preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 290-307.
    3. Montes, Ignacio & Montes, Susana, 2016. "Stochastic dominance and statistical preference for random variables coupled by an Archimedean copula or by the Fr e ´ chet–Hoeffding upper bound," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 275-298.

    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. De Meyer, H. & De Baets, B. & De Schuymer, B., 2007. "On the transitivity of the comonotonic and countermonotonic comparison of random variables," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 177-193, January.
    2. Montes, Ignacio & Miranda, Enrique & Montes, Susana, 2014. "Decision making with imprecise probabilities and utilities by means of statistical preference and stochastic dominance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 209-220.
    3. De Donder, Philippe & Le Breton, Michel & Truchon, Michel, 2000. "Choosing from a weighted tournament1," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 85-109, July.
    4. Brandt, Felix & Saile, Christian & Stricker, Christian, 2022. "Strategyproof social choice when preferences and outcomes may contain ties," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Llamazares, Bonifacio & Pérez-Asurmendi, Patrizia, 2013. "Triple-acyclicity in majorities based on difference in support," MPRA Paper 52218, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Banks, Jeffrey S. & Duggan, John & Le Breton, Michel, 2002. "Bounds for Mixed Strategy Equilibria and the Spatial Model of Elections," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 88-105, March.
    8. Harrison-Trainor, Matthew, 2022. "An analysis of random elections with large numbers of voters," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 68-84.
    9. Jean-François Laslier, 2005. "Party Objectives in the “Divide a Dollar” Electoral Competition," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: David Austen-Smith & John Duggan (ed.), Social Choice and Strategic Decisions, pages 113-130, Springer.
    10. Conal Duddy & Ashley Piggins, 2018. "On some oligarchy results when social preference is fuzzy," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(4), pages 717-735, December.
    11. Daniel R. Carroll & Jim Dolmas & Eric Young, 2015. "Majority Voting: A Quantitative Investigation," Working Papers (Old Series) 1442, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
    12. Houy, Nicolas, 2007. "Some further characterizations for the forgotten voting rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 111-121, January.
    13. Vincent Anesi, 2012. "A new old solution for weak tournaments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(4), pages 919-930, October.
    14. Daniel Carroll & Jim Dolmas & Eric Young, 2021. "The Politics of Flat Taxes," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 39, pages 174-201, January.
    15. M. Sanver, 2009. "Characterizations of majoritarianism: a unified approach," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 33(1), pages 159-171, June.
    16. 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.
    17. King, Sarah Schulz & Powers, Robert C., 2018. "Beyond neutrality: Extended difference of votes rules," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 146-152.
    18. Richard Baron & Mostapha Diss & Eric Rémila & Philippe Solal, 2015. "A geometric examination of majorities based on difference in support," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(1), pages 123-153, June.
    19. Llamazares, Bonifacio, 2006. "The forgotten decision rules: Majority rules based on difference of votes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 311-326, May.
    20. Martin, Mathieu & Merlin, Vincent, 2002. "The stability set as a social choice correspondence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 91-113, September.

    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:jmvana:v:96:y:2005:i:2:p:352-373. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/622892/description#description .

    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.