IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jclass/v36y2019i2d10.1007_s00357-018-9290-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distance and Consensus for Preference Relations Corresponding to Ordered Partitions

Author

Listed:
  • Boris Mirkin

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics
    Birkbeck University of London)

  • Trevor I. Fenner

    (Birkbeck University of London)

Abstract

Ranking is an important part of several areas of contemporary research, including social sciences, decision theory, data analysis, and information retrieval. The goal of this paper is to align developments in quantitative social sciences and decision theory with the current thought in Computer Science, including a few novel results. Specifically, we consider binary preference relations, the so-called weak orders that are in one-to-one correspondence with rankings. We show that the conventional symmetric difference distance between weak orders, considered as sets of ordered pairs, coincides with the celebrated Kemeny distance between the corresponding rankings, despite the seemingly much simpler structure of the former. Based on this, we review several properties of the geometric space of weak orders involving the ternary relation “between,” and contingency tables for cross-partitions. Next, we reformulate the consensus ranking problem as a variant of finding an optimal linear ordering, given a correspondingly defined consensus matrix. The difference is in a subtracted term, the partition concentration that depends only on the distribution of the objects in the individual parts. We apply our results to the conventional Likert scale to show that the Kemeny consensus rule is rather insensitive to the data under consideration and, therefore, should be supplemented with more sensitive consensus schemes.

Suggested Citation

  • Boris Mirkin & Trevor I. Fenner, 2019. "Distance and Consensus for Preference Relations Corresponding to Ordered Partitions," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 36(2), pages 350-367, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jclass:v:36:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s00357-018-9290-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s00357-018-9290-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00357-018-9290-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00357-018-9290-x?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabella Morlini & Sergio Zani, 2012. "A New Class of Weighted Similarity Indices Using Polytomous Variables," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 29(2), pages 199-226, July.
    2. Fuad Aleskerov & Denis Bouyssou & Bernard Monjardet, 2007. "Utility Maximization, Choice and Preference," Springer Books, Springer, edition 0, number 978-3-540-34183-3, June.
    3. Ben Amor, Sarah & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2014. "A new distance measure including the weak preference relation: Application to the multiple criteria aggregation procedure for mixed evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 1165-1169.
    4. Tom Snijders & Maarten Dormaar & Wijbrandt Schuur & Chantal Dijkman-Caes & Ger Driessen, 1990. "Distribution of some similarity coefficients for dyadic binary data in the case of associated attributes," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 7(1), pages 5-31, March.
    5. F. Baulieu, 1989. "A classification of presence/absence based dissimilarity coefficients," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 6(1), pages 233-246, December.
    6. Jean-Pierre Barthélemy & Bruno Leclerc & Bernard Monjardet, 1986. "On the use of ordered sets in problems of comparison and consensus of classifications," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 3(2), pages 187-224, September.
    7. B. Monjardet, 1978. "An Axiomatic Theory of Tournament Aggregation," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 334-351, November.
    8. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    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. Olivier Hudry & Bernard Monjardet, 2010. "Consensus theories: An oriented survey," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10057, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    2. Schwartz, Thomas, 2014. "Choice functions and bounded rationality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 14-18.
    3. Dimitris Tsintsaris & Milan Tsompanoglou & Evangelos Ioannidis, 2024. "Dynamics of Social Influence and Knowledge in Networks: Sociophysics Models and Applications in Social Trading, Behavioral Finance and Business," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-27, April.
    4. Bernard Monjardet, 2005. "Modèles ordinaux de préférences," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques b05097, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    5. Juan P. Aguilera & Levent Ülkü, 2017. "On the maximization of menu-dependent interval orders," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 48(2), pages 357-366, February.
    6. Andrea Aveni & Ludovico Crippa & Giulio Principi, 2024. "On the Weighted Top-Difference Distance: Axioms, Aggregation, and Approximation," Papers 2403.15198, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
    7. 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.
    8. Alcantud, Jose C.R., 2006. "Maximality with or without binariness: Transfer-type characterizations," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 182-191, March.
    9. Gais Alhadi & Imed Kacem & Pierre Laroche & Izzeldin M. Osman, 2020. "Approximation algorithms for minimizing the maximum lateness and makespan on parallel machines," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 285(1), pages 369-395, February.
    10. McMorris, F.R. & Powers, R.C., 2013. "Majority decision on median semilattices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 48-51.
    11. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2021. "Unit representation of semiorders I: Countable sets," Post-Print hal-03280649, HAL.
    12. Stephen Hirtle, 1987. "On the classification of recall strings using lattice-theoretic measures," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 4(2), pages 227-242, September.
    13. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    14. Pongou, Roland & Tchantcho, Bertrand & Tedjeugang, Narcisse, 2014. "Power theories for multi-choice organizations and political rules: Rank-order equivalence," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 42-49.
    15. Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(3), pages 1272-1289, August.
    16. Akbari, Sina & Escobedo, Adolfo R., 2023. "Beyond kemeny rank aggregation: A parameterizable-penalty framework for robust ranking aggregation with ties," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    17. Galeazzi, Paolo & Marti, Johannes, 2023. "Choice structures in games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 431-455.
    18. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    19. Elias Bouacida, 2021. "Identifying Choice Correspondences," Working Papers 327800275, Lancaster University Management School, Economics Department.
    20. Tyson, Christopher J., 2008. "Cognitive constraints, contraction consistency, and the satisficing criterion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 51-70, January.

    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:spr:jclass:v:36:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s00357-018-9290-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.