IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/matsoc/v61y2011i1p12-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decomposition behavior in aggregated data sets

Author

Listed:
  • Berube, Sarah
  • Crisman, Karl-Dieter

Abstract

One way to aggregate data is to combine several sets with the same structure, but no overlap in their ranges of values -- for instance, aggregating prices before and after a period of hyperinflation. Looking at nonparametric tests on three 'items', we compute the relation of the decomposition of the underlying voting profiles of such aggregated sets to those for the original data. We focus on the Basic components, including examples of 'pure Basic' sets, computed using Sage. This yields several interesting results about consistency of nonparametric tests with respect to this kind of aggregation, and suggests types of non-uniformity which are not detected by standard tests.

Suggested Citation

  • Berube, Sarah & Crisman, Karl-Dieter, 2011. "Decomposition behavior in aggregated data sets," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 12-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:matsoc:v:61:y:2011:i:1:p:12-19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-4896(10)00073-9
    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. Saari, Donald G., 1987. "The source of some paradoxes from social choice and probability," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Deanna B. Haunsperger, 2003. "Aggregated statistical rankings are arbitrary," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 20(2), pages 261-272, March.
    3. Saari, Donald G., 1999. "Explaining All Three-Alternative Voting Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 313-355, August.
    4. Bargagliotti, Anna E., 2009. "Aggregation and decision making using ranked data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 354-366, November.
    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. Haikady N Nagaraja & Shane Sanders, 2020. "The aggregation paradox for statistical rankings and nonparametric tests," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, March.
    2. Muhammad Mahajne & Shmuel Nitzan & Oscar Volij, 2015. "Level $$r$$ r consensus and stable social choice," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 805-817, December.
    3. Attila Ambrus & Kareen Rozen, 2015. "Rationalising Choice with Multi‐self Models," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(585), pages 1136-1156, June.
    4. Andreas Darmann & Julia Grundner & Christian Klamler, 2017. "Consensus in the 2015 Provincial Parliament Election in Styria, Austria: Voting Rules,Outcomes, and the Condorcet Paradox," Graz Economics Papers 2017-13, University of Graz, Department of Economics.
    5. Kivimäki, Ilkka & Shimbo, Masashi & Saerens, Marco, 2014. "Developments in the theory of randomized shortest paths with a comparison of graph node distances," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 393(C), pages 600-616.
    6. Vincent Merlin & İpek Özkal Sanver & M. Remzi Sanver, 2019. "Compromise Rules Revisited," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 63-78, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Eyal Baharad & Leif Danziger, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule is Optimal?," CESifo Working Paper Series 6851, CESifo.
    9. Baharad, Eyal & Danziger, Leif, 2018. "Voting in Hiring Committees: Which "Almost" Rule Is Optimal?," IZA Discussion Papers 11287, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Ozan Çakır & İbrahim Gürler & Bora Gündüzyeli, 2022. "Analysis of a Non-Discriminating Criterion in Simple Additive Weighting Deep Hierarchy," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(17), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Saari, Donald G. & McIntee, Tomas J., 2013. "Connecting pairwise and positional election outcomes," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 140-151.
    12. Donald Saari & Jill Newenhizen, 1988. "Is approval voting an ‘unmitigated evil’?: A response to Brams, Fishburn, and Merrill," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 133-147, November.
    13. Kamwa, Eric & Merlin, Vincent, 2015. "Scoring rules over subsets of alternatives: Consistency and paradoxes," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 130-138.
    14. Antoinette Baujard & Herrade Igersheim, 2007. "Expérimentation du vote par note et du vote par approbation lors de l'élection présidentielle française du 22 avril 2007," Post-Print halshs-00337290, HAL.
    15. William V. Gehrlein & Dominique Lepelley & Florenz Plassmann, 2018. "An Evaluation of the Benefit of Using Two-Stage Election Procedures," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 53-79, June.
    16. Luis C. Corchón & Marco Serena, 2016. "Properties of Contests," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2018-10, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    17. Luis G. Vargas, 2016. "Voting with Intensity of Preferences," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 839-859, July.
    18. M. Sanver & William Zwicker, 2009. "One-way monotonicity as a form of strategy-proofness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 38(4), pages 553-574, November.
    19. Bargagliotti, Anna E. & Li, Lingfang (Ivy), 2009. "Decision Making Using Rating Systems: When Scale Meets Binary," MPRA Paper 16947, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Muhammad Mahajne, 2020. "Borda rule as an almost first-order stochastic dominance rule," Working Papers hal-04543260, HAL.

    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:matsoc:v:61:y:2011:i:1:p:12-19. 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/inca/505565 .

    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.