{"title":"An Integrated Approach to Preferential Voting Models with Variable Weights for Rank Positions","authors":"Byeong Seok Ahn","doi":"10.1007/s10726-024-09874-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In a ranked voting system, voters select a subset of candidates and rank them from most to least preferred. Data envelopment analysis (DEA)-based voting models, among others, are used to determine the rank-position weights most favorable for each candidate, with the goal of achieving the highest aggregate score. However, concerns have been raised about the weights assigned to each rank position, as well as the potential for rank reversal of some candidates resulting from changes in votes earned by other candidates. To address these issues, some authors have developed two improved models. These models aim to incorporate the constraints of candidates that are not being evaluated into a single restriction, preventing inefficient candidates from influencing the order of efficient candidates. Moreover, these models treat the parameters used to make the distance between successive ranks as variable weights, and calculate average efficiency scores of candidates while considering the entire range of parameters. In this study, we revisit the two improved models and explore an alternative approach based on results from linear algebra and convex analysis, which is more intuitive and easier to understand. Furthermore, we provide closed-form optimal solutions for DEA-based voting models that share the common goal of maximizing the distance between successive ranks while considering both efficiency-related and weight constraints. The analysis of these four models offers a better understanding of their similarities and differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":47553,"journal":{"name":"Group Decision and Negotiation","volume":"2016 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Decision and Negotiation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09874-0","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In a ranked voting system, voters select a subset of candidates and rank them from most to least preferred. Data envelopment analysis (DEA)-based voting models, among others, are used to determine the rank-position weights most favorable for each candidate, with the goal of achieving the highest aggregate score. However, concerns have been raised about the weights assigned to each rank position, as well as the potential for rank reversal of some candidates resulting from changes in votes earned by other candidates. To address these issues, some authors have developed two improved models. These models aim to incorporate the constraints of candidates that are not being evaluated into a single restriction, preventing inefficient candidates from influencing the order of efficient candidates. Moreover, these models treat the parameters used to make the distance between successive ranks as variable weights, and calculate average efficiency scores of candidates while considering the entire range of parameters. In this study, we revisit the two improved models and explore an alternative approach based on results from linear algebra and convex analysis, which is more intuitive and easier to understand. Furthermore, we provide closed-form optimal solutions for DEA-based voting models that share the common goal of maximizing the distance between successive ranks while considering both efficiency-related and weight constraints. The analysis of these four models offers a better understanding of their similarities and differences.
在排序投票系统中,投票者选择一个候选人子集,并将其从最喜欢的到最不喜欢的进行排序。基于数据包络分析(DEA)的投票模型等被用来确定对每个候选人最有利的排名位置权重,目的是获得最高的总分。然而,人们对分配给每个排名位置的权重,以及因其他候选人得票变化而导致某些候选人排名逆转的可能性表示担忧。为了解决这些问题,一些作者开发了两个改进的模型。这些模型旨在将未被评估的候选人的约束条件纳入一个单一的限制条件,防止低效候选人影响高效候选人的排序。此外,这些模型将用于确定连续排序之间距离的参数视为可变权重,并在考虑整个参数范围的同时计算候选者的平均效率分数。在本研究中,我们重新审视了这两种改进模型,并探索了一种基于线性代数和凸分析结果的替代方法,这种方法更直观、更易于理解。此外,我们还为基于 DEA 的投票模型提供了闭式最优解,这些模型的共同目标是在考虑效率相关约束和权重约束的同时,最大化连续排名之间的距离。通过对这四种模型的分析,我们可以更好地理解它们之间的异同。
期刊介绍:
The idea underlying the journal, Group Decision and Negotiation, emerges from evolving, unifying approaches to group decision and negotiation processes. These processes are complex and self-organizing involving multiplayer, multicriteria, ill-structured, evolving, dynamic problems. Approaches include (1) computer group decision and negotiation support systems (GDNSS), (2) artificial intelligence and management science, (3) applied game theory, experiment and social choice, and (4) cognitive/behavioral sciences in group decision and negotiation. A number of research studies combine two or more of these fields. The journal provides a publication vehicle for theoretical and empirical research, and real-world applications and case studies. In defining the domain of group decision and negotiation, the term `group'' is interpreted to comprise all multiplayer contexts. Thus, organizational decision support systems providing organization-wide support are included. Group decision and negotiation refers to the whole process or flow of activities relevant to group decision and negotiation, not only to the final choice itself, e.g. scanning, communication and information sharing, problem definition (representation) and evolution, alternative generation and social-emotional interaction. Descriptive, normative and design viewpoints are of interest. Thus, Group Decision and Negotiation deals broadly with relation and coordination in group processes. Areas of application include intraorganizational coordination (as in operations management and integrated design, production, finance, marketing and distribution, e.g. as in new products and global coordination), computer supported collaborative work, labor-management negotiations, interorganizational negotiations, (business, government and nonprofits -- e.g. joint ventures), international (intercultural) negotiations, environmental negotiations, etc. The journal also covers developments of software f or group decision and negotiation.