Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T03:52:18.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information and Preference in Partial Orders: A Bimatrix Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Wade D. Cook ,
Moshe Kress  and
Lawrence M. Seiford
Wade D. Cook*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Administrative Studies, York University
Moshe Kress
Affiliation:
CEMA
Lawrence M. Seiford
Affiliation:
Department of General Business, University of Texas
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Wade D. Cook, Room 340, Faculty of Administrative Studies, York University, Downsview, Ontario, M3J 2R6, CANADA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a bimatrix structure for examining ordinal partial rankings. A set of axioms is given similar to those of Kemeny and Snell (1962) and Bogart (1973), which uniquely determines the distance between any pair of such rankings. The l1 norm is shown to satisfy this set of axioms, and to be equivalent to the Kemeny and Snell distance on their subspace of weak orderings. Consensus formation is discussed.

Keywords

rankingpreferenceconsensusaxioms
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 197 - 207
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was supported by a NSERC grant A8966.

References

Black, D. (1958). The theory of committees and elections, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bogart, K. P. (1973). Preference structures I: Distances between transitive preference relations. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogart, K. P. (1975). Preference structures II: Distances between asymmetric relations. Siam Journal of Applied Mathematics, 29(2), 254–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, W. D., Seiford, L. M. (1982). R&D project selection in a multidimensional environment: A practical approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 33(5), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, O. A., DeGroot, M. H., Hinich, M. J. (1972). Social preference orderings and majority rule. Econometrica, 40(1), 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemeny, J. G., Snell, L. J. (1962). Preference ranking: An axiomatic approach. In Kemeny, J. G., Snell, L. J. (Eds.), Mathematical models in the social sciences (pp. 9–23). New York: Ginn.Google Scholar
Margush, T. (1980). An axiomatic approach to distance between certain discrete structures, Bowling Green, OH.: Bowling Green State University.Google Scholar
Margush, T. (1982). Distance between trees. Discrete applied mathematics, 4, 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, W. H. (1961). Voting and summation of preferences: An interpretive bibliographical review of selected developments during the last decade. American Political Science Review, 4, 900–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, B., Vincke, Ph. (1984). Relational systems of preference with one or more pseudo-criteria: Some new concepts & results. Management Science, 30(11), 1323–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar