IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lvl/lacicr/0534.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Aggregation of Rankings: a Brief Review of Distance-Based Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Michel Truchon

Abstract

Some researchers have addressed the problem of aggregating individual preferences or rankings by seeking a ranking that is closest to the individual rankings. Their methods differ according to the notion of distance that they use. The best known method of this sort is due to Kemeny. The first part of this paper offers a brief survey of some of these methods. Another way of approaching the aggregation of rankings is as a problem of optimal statistical inference, in which an expected loss is minimised. This approach requires a loss function, a concept closely related the notion of distance between rankings. The second part of this paper examines two classes of parametric functions and proposes one class for the optimal statistical inference problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Michel Truchon, 2005. "Aggregation of Rankings: a Brief Review of Distance-Based Rules," Cahiers de recherche 0534, CIRPEE.
  • Handle: RePEc:lvl:lacicr:0534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cirpee.org/fileadmin/documents/Cahiers_2005/CIRPEE05-34.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Truchon, Michel, 2004. "Aggregation of Rankings in Figure Skating," Cahiers de recherche 0402, Université Laval - Département d'économique.
    2. 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.
    3. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    4. Truchon, Michel & Gordon, Stephen, 2009. "Statistical comparison of aggregation rules for votes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 199-212, March.
    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. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Muhammad Mahajne, 2020. "Borda rule as an almost first-order stochastic dominance rule," Working Papers hal-02554924, HAL.
    2. Truchon, Michel & Gordon, Stephen, 2009. "Statistical comparison of aggregation rules for votes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 199-212, March.
    3. Stephen Gordon & Michel Truchon, 2008. "Social choice, optimal inference and figure skating," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 265-284, February.
    4. Pierluigi Contucci & Emanuele Panizzi & Federico Ricci-Tersenghi & Alina Sîrbu, 2016. "Egalitarianism in the rank aggregation problem: a new dimension for democracy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 1185-1200, May.

    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. Stephen Gordon & Michel Truchon, 2008. "Social choice, optimal inference and figure skating," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(2), pages 265-284, February.
    2. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "The Measurement of Consensus: An Axiomatic Analysis," Working Papers 2008-28, FEDEA.
    3. Kelin Luo & Yinfeng Xu & Bowen Zhang & Huili Zhang, 2018. "Creating an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 307-328, July.
    4. Athanasios Spyridakos & Denis Yannacopoulos, 2015. "Incorporating collective functions to multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches for small group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 227(1), pages 119-136, April.
    5. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgement with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Technology, Institute of Organization and Management, vol. 4, pages 9-26.
    6. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe & Seiford, Lawrence M., 1997. "A general framework for distance-based consensus in ordinal ranking models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 392-397, January.
    7. Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgment with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Technology, Institute of Organization and Management, vol. 4, pages 7-26.
    8. Yeşilçimen, Ali & Yıldırım, E. Alper, 2019. "An alternative polynomial-sized formulation and an optimization based heuristic for the reviewer assignment problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 436-450.
    9. Way C.W. Chang & Po-Young Chu & Cherng G. Ding & Soushan Wu, 2000. "Analyzing Ordinal Data for Group Representation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 47-61, January.
    10. Sun, Bingzhen & Ma, Weimin, 2015. "An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-92.
    11. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2016. "Do we agree? Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 313-339, February.
    12. I. Contreras, 2012. "Ordered Weighted Disagreement Functions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 345-361, May.
    13. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Measuring the cohesiveness of preferences: an axiomatic analysis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 965-988, October.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "A collective choice method based on individual preferences relational systems (p.r.s.)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1549-1565, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Spyridakos, A. & Siskos, Y. & Yannacopoulos, D. & Skouris, A., 2001. "Multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 375-387, April.
    19. Fujun Hou, 2015. "A Consensus Gap Indicator and Its Application to Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 415-428, May.
    20. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Vote aggregation; ranking rules; distance; loss function; maximum likelihood; optimal inference; Kemeny;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General

    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:lvl:lacicr:0534. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Manuel Paradis). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cirpeca.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.