IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wut/journl/v4y2009p7-26id143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group judgment with ties. A position-based approach

Author

Listed:
  • Hanna Bury
  • Dariusz Wagner

Abstract

A system for defining the positions taken by alternatives under preference orders proposed by Cook and Seiford is discussed. This makes it possible to apply some positional methods of group judgement to the case of ties in experts’ opinions, as well as in group judgements. Numerical examples are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Hanna Bury & Dariusz Wagner, 2009. "Group judgment with ties. A position-based approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 19(4), pages 7-26.
    • Handle: RePEc:wut:journl:v:4:y:2009:p:7-26:id:143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ord.pwr.edu.pl/assets/papers_archive/143%20-%20published.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    3. Donald Saari, 2006. "Which is better: the Condorcet or Borda winner?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(1), pages 107-129, January.
    4. Mathias Risse, 2005. "Why the count de Borda cannot beat the Marquis de Condorcet," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(1), pages 95-113, October.
    5. Ralph W. Bailey, 1998. "The number of weak orderings of a finite set," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 15(4), pages 559-562.
    6. 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.
    7. Ronald D. Armstrong & Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation: The Case of Ties," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 638-645, June.
    8. Hannu Nurmi & Hannu Salonen, 2008. "More Borda Count Variations for Project Assesment," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 2(2), pages 109-122, September.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Fujun Hou, 2018. "Mutual Conversion Between Preference Maps And Cook-Seiford Vectors," Papers 1812.03566, arXiv.org.
    4. 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.
    5. Yucheng Dong & Yao Li & Ying He & Xia Chen, 2021. "Preference–Approval Structures in Group Decision Making: Axiomatic Distance and Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 273-295, December.
    6. 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.
    7. Hou, Fujun & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2019. "An iterative approach for achieving consensus when ranking a finite set of alternatives by a group of experts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 570-579.
    8. 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.
    9. Yeawon Yoo & Adolfo R. Escobedo, 2021. "A New Binary Programming Formulation and Social Choice Property for Kemeny Rank Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 296-320, December.
    10. Hannu Salonen, 2014. "Aggregating and Updating Information," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 8(2), pages 55-67, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Cascón, J.M. & González-Arteaga, T. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2019. "Reaching social consensus family budgets: The Spanish case," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-41.
    13. 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.
    14. Truchon, Michel, 2008. "Borda and the maximum likelihood approach to vote aggregation," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 96-102, January.
    15. Jorge Alcalde-Unzu & Marc Vorsatz, 2008. "The Measurement of Consensus: An Axiomatic Analysis," Working Papers 2008-28, FEDEA.
    16. Joaquín Pérez & José L. Jimeno & Estefanía García, 2015. "No Show Paradox and the Golden Number in Generalized Condorcet Voting Methods," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 497-513, May.
    17. 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.
    18. G. Laffond & J. Lainé, 2013. "Unanimity and the Anscombe’s paradox," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 21(3), pages 590-611, October.
    19. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "Metrizable preferences over preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 177-191, June.
    20. 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.

    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:wut:journl:v:4:y:2009:p:7-26:id:143. 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: Adam Kasperski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iopwrpl.html .

    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.