IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02361929.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monotonicity of ?ranking by choosing?: A progress report

Author

Listed:
  • Denis Bouyssou

    (LAMSADE - Laboratoire d'analyse et modélisation de systèmes pour l'aide à la décision - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

Procedures designed to select alternatives on the basis of the results of pairwise contests between them have received much attention in literature. The particular case of tournaments has been studied in depth. More recently weak tournaments and valued generalizations thereof have been investigated.The purpose of this paper is to investigate to what extent these choice procedures may be meaningfully used to define ranking procedures via their repeated use, i.e. when the equivalence classes of the ranking are determined by successive applications of the choice procedure. This is what we call “ranking by choosing”. As could be expected, such ranking procedures raise monotonicity problems. We analyze these problems and show that it is nevertheless possible to isolate a large class of well-behaved choice procedures for which failures of monotonicity are not overly serious. The hope of finding really attractive ranking by choosing procedures is however shown to be limited. Our results are illustrated on the case of tournaments. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2004
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Denis Bouyssou, 2004. "Monotonicity of ?ranking by choosing?: A progress report," Post-Print hal-02361929, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02361929
    DOI: 10.1007/s00355-003-0250-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sonin, Konstantin & Dagaev, Dmitry, 2013. "Winning by Losing: Incentive Incompatibility in Multiple Qualifiers," CEPR Discussion Papers 9373, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Csató, László, 2013. "Rangsorolás páros összehasonlításokkal. Kiegészítések a felvételizői preferencia-sorrendek módszertanához [Paired comparisons ranking. A supplement to the methodology of application-based preferenc," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1333-1353.
    3. Lainé, Jean, 2015. "Hyper-stable collective rankings," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 70-80.
    4. Gonzalez-Diaz, J. & Hendrickx, R.L.P. & Lohmann, E.R.M.A., 2011. "Paired Comparisons Analysis : An Axiomatic Approach to Rankings in Tournaments," Other publications TiSEM 2dbfd64d-2a1b-445c-86c6-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Horan, Sean & Sprumont, Yves, 2016. "Welfare criteria from choice: An axiomatic analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 56-70.
    6. László Csató, 2015. "A graph interpretation of the least squares ranking method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 51-69, January.
    7. Gonzalez-Diaz, J. & Hendrickx, R.L.P. & Lohmann, E.R.M.A., 2011. "Paired Comparisons Analysis : An Axiomatic Approach to Rankings in Tournaments," Discussion Paper 2011-116, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Christian Saile & Warut Suksompong, 2020. "Robust bounds on choosing from large tournaments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 54(1), pages 87-110, January.
    9. Julio González-Díaz & Ruud Hendrickx & Edwin Lohmann, 2014. "Paired comparisons analysis: an axiomatic approach to ranking methods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 139-169, January.
    10. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2016. "Ranking authors using fractional counting of citations: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 183-199.
    11. Subochev, Andrey & Aleskerov, Fuad & Pislyakov, Vladimir, 2018. "Ranking journals using social choice theory methods: A novel approach in bibliometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 416-429.

    More about this item

    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:hal:journl:hal-02361929. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.