# A Reduced Posetic Approach to the Measurement of Multidimensional Ordinal Deprivation

- 155 Downloads
- 5 Citations

## Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the existence of particular systems of generators for posets associated to multidimensional systems of ordinal indicators and derive a reduced posetic procedure for the measurement of multidimensional ordinal deprivation. The proposal is motivated by the need to lessen the computational complexity of the original posetic procedure described in Fattore (Soc Indic Res 128(2):835–858, 2015), so as to make it applicable to larger multi-indicator systems, particularly to those comprising many variables scored on “short” scales, as typical in deprivation studies. The reduced procedure computes identification and severity functions based only on so-called lexicographic linear extensions. These are a particular generating system for the basic achievement poset, naturally associated to rankings of deprivation attributes. After motivating this choice, both from an interpretative and a computational point of view, the paper provides some simulated examples, comparing the reduced and the non-reduced procedures.

## Keywords

Multidimensional deprivation Fuzzy poverty Partial order theory Hasse diagram## 1 Introduction

In some recent papers (Fattore et al. 2011, 2012; Fattore and Maggino 2014, 2015; Fattore 2016), the use of Partial Order Theory in the measurement of multidimensional deprivation has been proposed, as an alternative to more classical composite indicators methodologies or counting approaches (Alkire and Foster 2011a, b; Cerioli and Zani 1990). In principle, the use of poset theory solves most of the conceptual problems that other procedures have, when treating ordinal data. Poset theory is in fact designed to deal with order relations and provides the right tools for computing over multidimensional systems of ordinal attributes. The resulting measurement procedure is completely consistent with the nature of the data, still fitting the logic thread of classical poverty assessment processes. No scaling of ordinal attributes into numerical scores and no introduction of numerical weights to account for attribute importance are necessary, in order to get synthetic, yet non-composite, deprivation indicators. Nevertheless, the evaluation procedure has its main drawback in computational complexity. The computation of the evaluation functions draws upon the extraction of linear extensions from the achievement poset (see next section for a formal definition). In general, the number of these extensions grows extremely fast with the cardinality of the poset, so that in real multi-indicator systems exact computations are usually impossible. The problem is partly circumvented by using sampling procedures and computing evaluation functions on a random subset of linear extensions. This extends the range of applicability of the posetic procedure, but not enough to fit the needs of social scientists completely. In particular, a more usable posetic procedure is needed to deal with multi-indicator systems comprising many attributes, scored on scales with few degrees (e.g. two or four). This is, in fact, typical of modern deprivation or well-being studies, which are based on data extracted from international surveys, like EU-Silc. Moving from these considerations, in the following, we show that the basic achievement poset can be reconstructed by particular families of linear extensions, from which different evaluation functions can be built. These functions are of interest, both from a computational and an interpretative point of view. In fact, they require less computations to be worked out (with respect to the evaluation functions originally proposed in Fattore (2016)) and capture different aspects of multidimensional deprivation. From these evaluation functions, we then derive a reduced evaluation procedure, useful to extend the posetic approach to larger systems of ordinal attributes.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an outline of the posetic approach to the evaluation of multidimensional ordinal deprivation. Section 3 discusses the computational issues to face, when applying the procedure to real posets. Section 4 introduces the alternative generating systems for the basic achievement poset and the related evaluation functions. Section 5 presents the reduced evaluation procedure. Section 6 compares it to the non-reduced procedure, on some simple posets. Section 7 concludes. A final appendix reports the proof of a technical result, needed in the text. The paper is rather technical, but it is to be considered as a development and a completion of Fattore (2016), where the foundations of the posetic methodology have been illustrated. Together, the papers provide a valuable and effective setting for the study of multidimensional deprivation.

## 2 The Partial Order Approach to Deprivation Measurement

In this section, we give a sketch of the posetic approach proposed in (Fattore 2016), where all the details are worked out, and highlight some of its criticalities, so as to motivate the reduced procedure. We limit ourselves to the essentials; elements of poset theory and other technical details can be found in the original paper and in Neggers and Kim (1998), Schröder. (2002).

### 2.1 Building the Basic Achievement Poset

Let \(v_1^{},\ldots ,v_k^{}\) be *k* ordinal attributes, possibly scored on scales with different number of degrees \(m_1^{},\ldots ,m_k^{}\). The set *P* of all the achievement profiles, i.e. of *k*-dimensional sequences of scores on \(v_1^{},\ldots ,v_k^{}\), partially ordered according to the product order \(\trianglelefteq\) (Neggers and Kim 1998; Schröder. 2002) of the linear orders corresponding to the attributes, is called the *basic achievement poset* (denoted by \(\varPi =(P, \trianglelefteq )\)). In practice, two profiles \(\varvec{p}=(p_{1}^{},\ldots ,p_{k}^{})\), \(\varvec{q}=(q_{1}^{},\ldots ,q_{k}^{})\) are ordered in \(\varPi\) (i.e. \(\varvec{p}\,\trianglelefteq\, \varvec{q}\)) if and only if \(p_{i}^{}\le q_{i}^{}\) (\(i=1,\ldots ,k\)). Notice that the achievement poset may comprise profiles not realized in the data. In fact, it represents the “evaluation space” and not the space of observed profiles.

### 2.2 Introducing Attribute Relevance

The basic achievement poset is just one possible way to partially order achievement profiles. In a sense, it is the weakest way to order them, respecting the natural concept that if a statistical unit improves one of its achievement without worsening any of the others, his/her achievement profile strictly improves. Attributes are treated on the same ground and no one of them is considered as more relevant than the others (from the point of view of its impact on the deprivation status of a statistical unit). Assuming some attributes as more important than others imposes a different partial order on the profile set. The resulting achievement poset, denoted by \(\varPi ^{ext}_{}\), is necessarily an *extension* of \(\varPi\), i.e. it is obtained from \(\varPi\) in an “ordering preserving way”, turning some incomparabilities into comparabilities (since, also in \(\varPi ^{ext}\), the natural ordering between profiles cannot be violated). Different ways to turn the exogenous information on the relevance of attributes into an extension of \(\varPi\) may be considered. For our purposes, the fundamental one comes from linking univocally any partial order on the set of attributes to an extension of the basic achievement poset, as described in (Fattore 2016). The extended achievement poset may then be considered as the basic one “made consistent” to the set of socio-economic values expressed assigning a relevance pattern (partial order) to the set of attributes.

### 2.3 Setting the Threshold

The achievement poset (basic or extended) conveys no information on deprivation, unless a *deprivation threshold* \(\tau\) is set in it. The threshold must be set by experts or through other exogenous processes, but from a mathematical point of view it must be chosen as an *antichain* (i.e. a subset of mutually incomparable achievement profiles), whose elements represent profiles “on the edge” of deprivation. Once the achievement poset is endowed with a deprivation threshold, it gets a socio-economic meaning and actually becomes the evaluation space of deprivation.

### 2.4 Computing the Evaluation Functions

The heart of the evaluation procedure is the computation of the identification function, assigning to each profile in the achievement poset its degree of deprivation. The identification score of a profile \(\varvec{p}\) is to be interpreted, in a fuzzy spirit, as the membership degree of \(\varvec{p}\) to deprivation, according to the threshold selected. It assumes values in [0, 1], where 0 correspondes to “no deprivation at all” and 1 to “complete deprivation”. The identification score of completely or partially deprived profiles can be complemented with a severity score, measuring the “depth” of deprivation. Severity can be measured both in absolute and relative terms, i.e. comparing the absolute scores to that of the most deprived profile, namely the bottom of the achievement poset (details on the formulas and the interpretation of the evaluation functions are given in Fattore (2016)). The identification and severity scores of a profile are finally assigned to each statistical unit sharing that profile.

### 2.5 Computing Overall Deprivation Indicators

Once each statistical unit has been assessed in terms of identification and severity, score distributions and overall indicators can be computed, in the spirit of the Head Count Ratio or Poverty Gap, at population or subpopulation level.

The posetic procedure schematically sketched above provides a “completely ordinal”way to the evaluation of ordinal deprivation (or well-being, or quality-of-life or the like). It represents a step forward over composite indicators and counting approaches; in fact, it extracts information in an effective way directly from the partial order structure of the multi-indicator system, neither turning ordinal scores into numbers, nor reducing ordinal attributes to binary variables, as in the Alkire–Foster methodology (Alkire and Foster 2011a, b).

## 3 Computational Issues

Number of linear extensions for some posets of the class \(\{\varvec{2}^k_{}\}\)

Poset | Elements | Linear ext. |
---|---|---|

\(\varvec{2}^2_{}\) | 4 | 2 |

\(\varvec{2}^3_{}\) | 8 | 48 |

\(\varvec{2}^4_{}\) | 16 | \(>423,936\) |

\(\varvec{2}^5_{}\) | 32 | \(>1.8\cdot 10^{17}\) |

Number of runs, of the Bubley–Dyer sampling algorithm, needed to achieve uniformity in the sampling distribution, within an error of \(\epsilon =10^{-3}\), for different posets

Poset | Elements | Runs |
---|---|---|

\(\varvec{2}^4_{}\) | 16 | 3,359,977 |

\(\varvec{2}^5_{}\) | 32 | 123,534,106 |

\(\varvec{2}^6_{}\) | 64 | 4,581,459,610 |

\(\varvec{2}^7_{}\) | 128 | 168,568,776,870 |

Using standard personal computers, the sampling algorithm allows the evaluation procedure to be applied to posets with up to some hundreds profiles. For example, deprivation measures can be computed on posets like \(\varvec{2}^7_{}\), \(\varvec{4}^4_{}\) (comprising 128 and 256 elements, respectively), \(\varvec{3}^5_{}\) (243 elements) or \(\varvec{5}^3_{}\) (125 elements). In many studies, however, much more attributes are considered and achievement posets may comprise thousands of profiles. In these cases, the posetic evaluation procedure suffers of computational problems and cannot be put to work easily.

## 4 Alternative Generating Systems for the Basic Achievement Poset

In this section, we show that the basic achievement poset can be generated by particular families of linear extensions and that different evaluation functions can be derived from them. Before turning to formal developments, however, we outline the logic thread followed in the next paragraphs, to ease understanding the technicalities. In the original posetic procedure, the evaluation functions are built as an average of simpler functions associated to linear extensions of the achievement poset. The theoretical justification for this construction is that finite posets are univocally identified by their respective set of linear extensions (see Fattore (2016) for a deeper discussion on this point). More precisely, any finite poset \(\varPi\) is the intersection of the set \(\varOmega (\varPi )\) of its linear extensions, i.e. \(\varOmega (\varPi )\) is a *generating system* for \(\varPi\). It turns out that different generating systems^{1}, other than \(\varOmega (\varPi )\), can be found (see for example Fattore (2016) and, for more general results, Schröder. (2002)) and that each of them can be used, in principle, to build alternative evaluation functions. When \(\varPi\) is the basic achievement poset built as described in Sect. 2, some particularly simple generating systems can be found. As thoroughly discussed below, these systems lead to evaluation functions which are easily interpretable from the point of view of multi-criteria decision making; moreover, their cardinality is smaller than that of the full set of linear extensions, leading to lighter computations. The technical developments of the following paragraphs are basically devoted to partitioning the set of linear extensions of the basic achievement poset in such a way that the alternative generating systems easily emerge. We first show that \(\varOmega (\varPi )\) can be partitioned as the disjoint union of the subsets of *conditional*, *compensative* and *mixing* linear extensions (the terminology will be explained below); the set of conditional linear extensions will be further partitioned into the subsets of *lexicographic* and *switching* linear extensions. The set of lexicographic linear extensions (and hence also the set of conditional linear extensions) turns out to be a generating systems for the achievement poset, and to be of special interest in view of deprivation evaluation. The reduced evaluation procedure, in particular, follows from computing the evaluation functions over lexicographic linear extensions. We introduce these results, by first studying poset \(\varvec{2}^3_{}\), depicted in Fig. 1b. This poset is very simple and allows for effective graphical representations, making the formal arguments much easier to grasp and to generalize to more complex partially ordered sets.

### 4.1 Conditional, Compensative and Mixing Linear Extensions

*Com*, as depicted in Fig. 2. Posets \(Con_1^{}, Con_2^{}\) and \(Con_3^{}\) are called

*conditional*, since they order profiles “conditional on one attribute”, i.e. fixing the scores of one attribute, and partially ordering profiles according to the scores on the other attributes. Each of the conditional posets has four linear extensions, called

*conditional*, as well. Poset

*Com*is instead obtained from \(\varvec{2}^3\) adding edges to the original Hasse diagram, in such a way that each element on a level

^{2}covers all of the elements on the level below. Profiles belonging to the same level of

*Com*share the same number of 1s and 0s, so that this poset can be interpreted as a partial order where “the more achievements, the better” (assuming “1” stands for the ownership of a specific good, for example). Since profiles with the same number of achievements are “equivalent” in

*Com*(i.e. they share the same comparabilities and incomparabilities and exchanging two of them would not change the partial order relation), this poset is here called

*compensative*. Linear extensions of

*Com*are easily computed, by stacking permutations of profiles belonging to the same level: they are 36, obviously called

*compensative*. These four posets do not have any linear extension in common, so \(CON_1^{}(\varvec{2}^3_{})=\varOmega (Con_1^{})\), \(CON_2^{}(\varvec{2}^3_{})=\varOmega (Con_2^{})\), \(CON_3^{}(\varvec{2}^3_{})=\varOmega (Con_3^{})\) and \(COM(\varvec{2}^3_{})=\varOmega (Com)\) form a partition of \(\varOmega (\varvec{2}^3_{})\):

*k*ordinal attributes can be represented as the intersection of

*k*conditional posets \(Con_1^{}(\varPi ),\ldots ,Con_k^{}(\varPi )\), one compensative poset \(Com(\varPi )\) and a residual set \(Mix(\varPi )\) of linear extensions which order profiles mixing them, so as to get neither conditional, nor compensative linear extensions (for this reason, here we term them

*mixing*; in the case of \(\varvec{2}^3\), the set of mixing linear extensions is empty). Formally:

^{3}as:

^{4}:

### 4.2 Lexicographic and Switching Linear Extensions

*lexicographic*linear extensions. Similarly, \(Con_2^{}\) has two lexicographic linear extensions, ordered according to \(v_2^{},v_1^{},v_3^{}\) and \(v_2^{},v_3^{},v_1^{}\); also \(Con_3^{}\) has two, ordered according to \(v_3^{},v_1^{},v_2^{}\) and \(v_3^{},v_2^{},v_1^{}\). Non-lexicographic linear extensions of \(Con_1\) will be instead referred to as

*switching*, since they exchange the order of \(v_2\) and \(v_3\) at different levels of \(v_1\). The same terminology holds for non-lexicographic linear extensions of \(Con_2\) and \(Con_3\). Collecting all of the lexicographic linear extensions of \(\varvec{2}^3_{}\) into the set \(LEX(\varvec{2}^3_{})\) and all the switching linear extensions into the set \(SWI(\varvec{2}^3_{})\), we can finally partition \(\varOmega (\varvec{2}^3_{})\) as follows (recall that this poset has no mixing linear extensions):

*k*ordinal attributes; in particular, \(\varPi\) has

*k*! lexicographic linear extensions and \(\varOmega (\varPi )\) can be decomposed as the disjoint union of the sets of lexicographic, switching, compensative and mixing linear extensions:

### *Remark*

### 4.3 Evaluation Functions for the Basic Achievement Poset

*j*-th conditional component assigns scores to deprivation profiles consistently with the following partial order on the set of attributes

*k*! classifiers, covering all of the complete orders on

*k*elements. So, from the perspective of multi-criteria decision making, the difference between conditional and lexicographic identification functions lies in the underlying partial orders defined on the set of attributes. Similar considerations could be done for the severity functions.

The above discussion can be summarized as follows. In the posetic approach, the intrinsic nuances and the fuzziness of multidimensional deprivation reflect into the existence of incomparabilities among achievement profiles. These can be seen as due to the existence of different linear extensions, i.e. of different profile rankings, whose intersection determines the basic achievement poset. In turn, some of these different rankings can be seen as due to difference in the partial or complete order of attributes, in terms of importance with respect to the evaluation of deprivation. These “components” of deprivation nuances and fuzziness are linked to conditional components and lexicographic linear extensions and are measured by the respective identification functions.

## 5 The Reduced Evaluation Procedure

The aims behind the definition of a reduced posetic procedure for deprivation evaluation can be summarized as follows: (i) we want to preserve the *posetic nature* of the approach (the procedure must be completely ordinal and lead to a fuzzy description of deprivation), (ii) we want to keep the *structure* of the evaluation process (the procedure must follow the steps 1–5 outlined in Sect. 2) and (iii) we require computations to be *lighter* (i.e. the procedure must be applicable to larger posets). In particular, we want the posetic approach to be effective when one deals with several attributes scored on a few degrees (as typical in deprivation studies). Actually, the critical point is the third. In principle, there are three ways to modify the evaluation procedure to achieve it: (i) developing more efficient linear extensions sampling algorithms, (ii) finding out mathematical formulas to analytically approximate evaluation functions (Loof et al. 2008) or (iii) restricting the class of linear extensions involved in the computations. We focus on the third alternative, i.e. we restrict the computation of the evaluation functions to a subset of linear extensions.

The basic idea is to choose a suitable generating system for the basic achievement poset and to build the evaluation functions over it. Given the above discussion, we could choose both the conditional and the lexicographic systems. However, the number of conditional linear extensions still grows too fast, as the number of attributes increases, for computations to be performed on many real posets. Hence, we define the reduced evaluation procedure computing the evaluation functions over the lexicographic generators, whose number is *k*!. In fact, although *k*! grows fast with *k*, it stays much smaller than the lower bounds given in Eq. (2) for the cardinality of \(\varOmega (\varPi )\). A comment on this point is in order. The choice of the lexicographic generating system is not to be considered primarily as an attempt to provide approximations to the non-reduced evaluation functions. In the reduced procedure, basic classifiers assign profiles to deprivation or to non-deprivation differently, since each of them reflect a different attribute ranking. It is the existence of such alternative rankings that “generates” deprivation fuzziness. Consequently, the reduced procedure should be employed whenever deprivation measurement is addressed sharing this point of view. Considering the subset of lexicographic linear extensions only, implies disregarding other linear generators, in particular the switching and the mixing ones. The cardinality of these classes of extensions is greater than that of the lexicographic ones (which is “only” *k*!); but since there is no link between the way they order profiles and attribute rankings, in the reduced procedure switching and mixing generators are not considered and do not enter the evaluation exercise. This does not mean that these linear extensions cannot be of interest in other cases. For example, if one assumes that attribute rankings can differ, conditional on the level of one attribute, then switching linear extensions could come into play. Indeed, other reduced procedures could be developed, associating evaluation functions to other families of generators, according to different “conceptual models” or “representations” of the way deprivation fuzziness originates. In other words, the existence of different poset representations allows for alternative and non-equivalent evaluation functions (if they were equivalent, there would be no interest in the existence of such different representations). Some representations can be considered more useful than others, and the choice of a specific one should be indeed motivated on some grounds (theoretical or practical; for example, a representation can prove useful, since it is effective in capturing deprivation sufficiently well, providing useful hints for policy-making). The point is thus the following: is the reduced procedure proposed in this paper meaningful and useful? Its meaning is clear, in terms of link to attribute rankings. Its usefulness should be tested in applications, but there are evidences, that the reduced procedure is indeed effective (see Sect. 6, for more precise statements in this perspective).

### *Remark*

The reduced procedure is completely consistent with the way attribute relevance is introduced into the posetic computations, when partial orders on the set of attributes are defined (see Fattore (2016) for details). This means that it can be applied not only to the basic achievement poset, but to any achievement poset obtained filtering some lexicographic linear extensions out, from the original lexicographic generating system. In this case, the lexicographic evaluation functions will be computed on the remaining lexicographic linear extensions.

## 6 Comparison Between Reduced and Non-Reduced Evaluation Procedures

In this section, we present some simulation studies to compare lexicographic and full evaluation functions on some posets. The shapes of these functions depend in a non-trivial way upon the partial order relation defining the achievement poset and upon the choice of the threshold. For this reason, here we just provide some first investigations on the lexicographic functions, in order to get some insights and to drive future deeper and more systematic analyses. For each poset, we compute both the identification and the relative severity^{5} functions for the reduced and the non-reduced procedures, comparing their values and the corresponding computation times (Table 3).

### *Remark*

In the following pictures, profiles are listed on the abscissa in increasing order of their scores, computed according to the non-reduced identification, or severity, function.

- 1.
Completely deprived profiles and completely non-deprived profiles are preserved by \(idn_{lex}^{}(\cdot |\cdot )\), i.e. \(idn_{lex}^{}(\cdot |\cdot )\) equals 1 or 0 if and only if \(idn_{\varPi }(\cdot |\cdot )\) does. In fact, to get scores 0 or 1, profiles must be classified as non-deprived or deprived (respectively) by each linear extension, and thus also by the lexicographic ones.

- 2.
The degree of fuzziness of deprivation depends upon the number of attributes considered (“multidimensionality effect”) and upon the number of degrees of the scales they are scored against (“coarse-graining effect”). The number of lexicographic linear extensions equals

*k*! (where*k*is the number of attributes), and there are \(k!+1\) different values that the lexicographic identification function can assume (they correspond to the possible fractions of lexicographic linear extensions, classifying a profile as deprived). When the number of attributes is high, the lexicographic identification function may be similar to the full identification function. On the contrary, when the number of attributes is low, the lexicographic procedure cannot account for fuzziness due to the “coarse-graining” effect. As a result, we expect the reduced posetic procedure to be mostly effective when attributes are scored on short scales. - 3.
As it can be checked in the following simulations, even if the difference between the reduced and the full procedures can be relevant sometimes, the overall picture of deprivation need not be so different (e.g. in terms of the existence and identification of individuals with “high” or “low” values of the evaluation functions). So the reduced procedure need not necessarily imply relevant losses of “meaningful” information (e.g. of information with policy-making implications).

- 4.
The reduced evaluation procedure still greatly improves over the Alkire–Foster Counting Approach, which provides just a binary (yes/no) assessment of multidimensional deprivation.

- 5.
Using the reduced procedure, the computation time decreases dramatically. Clearly, when

*k*grows enough, listing all of the lexicographic linear extensions may still be problematic. However, applying the sampling approach used in the full procedure to the lexicographic generating system, it is possible to apply the reduced procedure to multi-indicator systems with tens of attributes. This is the strategy being implemented in the next release of the R package PARSEC (Arcagni and Fattore 2014).

**Poset**\(\varvec{2}^3\). This is the poset depicted in Fig. 1b. As stated, it has 48 linear extensions and six of them are lexicographic. Figure 4 compares the reduced and non-reduced evaluation functions, setting threshold \(\tau\) as (010); as it can be noticed, the lexicographic procedure provides results quite similar to those of the full procedure. Clearly, this happens since attributes have only two scores. In both cases, evaluation functions are computed in less than 1 second.

**Posets** \(\varvec{2}^2\times \varvec{3}^2\), \(\varvec{3}^3\) **and** \(\varvec{3}^4\). As in the previous example, these three posets belong to the class of “few-attributes/few-degrees” product posets. Although they are of a small size, full evaluation functions cannot be computed exactly and sampling algorithms have to be adopted. An analytical comparison of the computational burdens of the reduced and full procedures on these posets is reported in Table 3, while Figs. 5, 6 and 7 depict the resulting evaluation functions. As it can be seen, the degree of similarity of the lexicographic evaluation functions to the full ones changes from case to case and, in general, it is better for the severity function than for the identification function. One notice, also, that the lexicographic and full functions order profiles differently (i.e they are not “co-monotone”, so as to say) and that the reduced ones tend to be “more linear” than the full ones.

**Poset** \(\varvec{10}^2\). This poset is of a “few-attributes/many-degrees” kind. It has been reported here, as an example of a case where the lexicographic evaluation functions are necessarily very dissimilar from the full ones. In fact, since there are just two lexicographic linear extensions, the lexicographic identification function can assume just three values, namely 0, 0.5 and 1 (Fig. 8).

**Poset**\(\varvec{2}^7\). This poset belongs to the class of “many-attributes/few-degrees” partial orders. The computation of the full evaluation functions is very heavy, as can be checked by figures reported in Table 3. The lexicographic identification function is quite dissimilar from the full one, when the latter assumes values below 0.5; for greater values, the full identification function is “more linear” and the lexicographic one is more similar to it (Fig. 9). The shape of the reduced severity function, instead, globally resembles that of the full one.

Summary of the computational burden comparison. Time is in seconds

\(\varPi\) | \(\tau\) | Full procedure | Reduced procedure | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Runs | Time (s) | \(|LEX(\varPi )|\) | Time (s) | ||

\(\mathbf {3}^3\) | \(\{111\}\) | 50,962,721 | 13.12 | 6 | \(\simeq\) 0 |

\(\mathbf {2}^2\times \mathbf {3}^2\) | \(\{1010, 0101\}\) | 228,284,063 | 73.65 | 24 | 0.02 |

\(\mathbf {3}^4\) | \(\{1110, 0111, 1101\}\) | 15,619,852,978 | 10416.83 | 24 | 0.02 |

\(\mathbf {10}^2\) | \(\{24, 42, 33\}\) | 46,742,477,388 | 38668.22 | 2 | \(\simeq\) 0 |

\(\mathbf {2}^7\) | \(\begin{array}{r} \{1010101,0101010,\\ 0001111,1111000\} \end{array}\) | 168,568,776,860 | 183337.88 | 5040 | 2.95 |

## 7 Conclusion

In this paper, we have shown that different evaluation functions can be computed, selecting different generating systems for the basic achievement poset, and we have proposed a reduced posetic procedure for the evaluation of multidimensional deprivation. The procedure preserves the power and the logic of the original approach; it lessens the computational burden and can be much more easily applied to highly dimensional multi-indicator systems, in particular when many attributes scored on few degrees are considered. Moreover, it still improves conceptually and practically over the Counting Approach of Alkire and Foster, which provides a simple deprived/non-deprived classification of statistical units. In conjunction with algorithms for sampling linear extensions, the reduced procedure definitely extends the range of applicability of the posetic evaluation procedure. Simulations show that the lexicographic identification function tends to be more “linear” than the non-reduced one, while reduced and non-reduced severity functions tend to be more similar. The reduced procedure, however, is not primarily to be intended as an approximation to the non-reduced one; rather, coherently with the final comment in Sect. 5, it provides exact measures of specific aspects of deprivation fuzziness and severity, namely those directly originating from the lack of a complete ranking, in terms of relevance, of deprivation attributes. In the next future, the reduced procedure is going to be implemented in the R package PARSEC (Arcagni and Fattore (2014)), so providing social scientists with a practical and effective evaluation tool, to deal with multi-indicator systems and posets.

## Footnotes

- 1.
Generating systems can have different cardinalities; the smallest cardinality of a generating system of a poset \(\varPi\) is called the

*dimension*of \(\varPi\). - 2.
In a generic finite poset, the

*level*(sometimes called*co-level*) of an element can be defined as the length (i.e. the number of edges) of the shortest chain connecting it to a minimal element. See Patil and Taillie (2004) for more details on levels and co-levels. - 3.
Notice that here we are decomposing sets of linear extensions as union of specific subsets; posets are instead described in terms of intersections of linear extensions or, more generally, of other posets.

- 4.
This explains formula (2), which is a recursive count of the number of linear extensions of the conditional and compensative components of poset \(\varvec{2}^{k+1}\).

- 5.Here, we consider relative severity as defined in formula (6) of Fattore (2016), i.e.where \(svr_\ell (\varvec{p})\) is the severity of profile \(\varvec{p}\) in linear extension \(\ell\) and \(\varvec{p}_{\bot }\) is the minimum element of the achievement poset \(\varPi\); \(svr_\ell (\varvec{p})\) is the distance of \(\varvec{p}\) from the highest element of the threshold, in \(\ell\).$$\begin{aligned} svr^*(\varvec{p})=\frac{1}{|\varOmega (\varPi )|}\sum _{\ell \in \varOmega (\varPi )}\frac{svr_{\ell }(\varvec{p})}{svr_{\ell }(\varvec{p}_{\bot })}, \end{aligned}$$

## References

- Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement.
*Journal of Public Economics*,*95*(7–8), 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement.
*The Journal of Economic Inequality*,*9*(2), 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Arcagni, A., & Fattore, M. (2014). PARSEC: An R package for poset-based evaluation of multidimensional poverty. In R. Bruggemann, L. Carlsen, & J. Wittmann (Eds.),
*Multi-indicator systems and modelling in partial order*. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar - Bubley, R., & Dyer, M. (1999). Faster random generation of linear extensions.
*Discrete mathematics*,*201*, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Brightwell, G., & Winkler, P. (1991). Counting linear extensions.
*Order*,*8*, 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cerioli, A., & Zani, S. (1990). A fuzzy approach to the measurement of poverty. In C. Dagum & M. Zenga (Eds.),
*Income and wealth distribution, inequality and poverty*. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - De Loof, K., De Baets, B., & De Meyer, H. (2006). Exploiting the lattice of ideals representation of a poset.
*Fundamenta Informaticae*,*71*(2–3), 309–321.Google Scholar - De Loof, K., De Baets, B., & De Meyer, H. (2008). Properties of mutual rank probabilities in partially ordered sets. In J. W. Owsinski & R. Bruggemann (Eds.),
*Multicriteria ordering and ranking: Partial orders, ambiguities and applied issues*. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar - Fattore, M., Bruggemann, R., & Owsiński, J. (2011). Using poset theory to compare fuzzy multidimensional material deprivation across regions. In S. Ingrassia, R. Rocci, & M. Vichi (Eds.),
*New perspectives in statistical modeling and data analysis*. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar - Fattore M., Maggino F., & Colombo E. (2012).
*From composite indicators to partial order: Evaluating socio-economic phenomena through ordinal data*. In Maggino F. & Nuvolati G. (Eds.).*Quality of life in Italy: Research and reflections*. Social Indicators Research Series 48. New York: Springer.Google Scholar - Fattore, M., & Maggino, F. (2014). Partial orders in socio-economics: a practical challenge for poset theorists or a cultural challenge for social scientists? In R. Bruggemann, L. Carlsen, & J. Wittmann (Eds.),
*Multi-indicator systems and modelling in partial order*. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar - Fattore, M., & Maggino, F. (2015). A new method for measuring and analyzing suffering—Comparing suffering patterns in Italian society. In R. E. Anderson (Ed.),
*World suffering and the quality of life*. New York: Springer.Google Scholar - Fattore, M. (2016). Partially ordered sets and the measurement of multidimensional ordinal deprivation.
*Social Indicators Research*,*128*(2), 835–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Neggers, J., & Kim, S. H. (1998).
*Basic posets*. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Patil, G. P., & Taillie, C. (2004). Multiple indicators, partially ordered sets and linear extensions: Multi-criterion ranking and prioritization.
*Environmental and Ecological Statistics*,*11*, 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - R Core Team (2012).
*R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing*, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/. - Schröder., (2002).
*Ordered set*. An introduction. Birkäuser: Boston.Google Scholar