Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Distance-Based Consensus Model with Flexible Choice of Rank-Position Weights

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we propose a preference aggregation procedure for those cases in which the decision-makers express their preferences by means of a ranking of alternatives. Among the most applied methods for this purpose are those inspired by the Borda–Kendall rule, which attach to each alternative an aggregated value of the votes received in the different rank positions, and those based on distance measures between individual and collective preferences, which look for the solution that maximizes the consensus. The main idea here is to integrate these two approaches. Taking into account that the information about the values of weights or utilities assigned to each rank position is imprecise, we propose an evaluation of the alternatives using that vector of weights that minimizes the disagreement between DMs. In order to solve the problem, mixed-integer linear programming models are constructed. Two numerical examples are examined to illustrate the applicability of the proposed procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali I, Cook WD, Kress M et al (1986) Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference: a linear programming approach. Manage Sci 32(12): 1642–1647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baigent N (2000) Preference proximity and anonymous social choice. Q J Econ 102(1): 161–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black D (1976) Partial justification of the Borda count. Public Choice 28(1): 1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borda JC (1784) Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences

  • Chebotarev PY, Shamis E (1998) Characterizations of scoring methods for preference aggregation. Ann Oper Res 80: 299–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contreras I, Hinojosa MA, Mármol AM (2005) A class of flexible weight indices for ranking alternatives. IMA J Manage Math 16(1): 71–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Kress M (1985) Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference. Manage Sci 31(1): 26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Kress M (1986) Ordinal ranking and preference strength. Math Soc Sci 11: 295–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Kress M (1990) A data envelopment model for aggregation preference ranking. Manage Sci 36(11): 1302–1310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Kress M (1996) An extreme-point approach for obtaining weighted ratings in qualitative multicriteria decision making. Nav Res Logis 43(4): 519–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Seiford LM (1978) Priority ranking and consensus formation. Manage Sci 24(16): 1721–1732

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Seiford LM (1982) On the Borda–Kendall consensus method for priority ranking problems. Manage Sci 28(6): 621–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD, Kress M, Seiford LM (1997) A general framework for distance-based consensus in ordinal ranking models. Eur J Oper Res 96(2): 392–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn PC (1977) Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM J Appl Math 33(3): 469–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foroguchi AA, Tamiz M (2005) An effective total ranking model for ranked voting system. Omega 33(6): 491–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Lapresta JL (2007) Weighting individual opinions in group decision models. In: Modelling decisions in artificial intelligence. Lecture notes in artificial intelligence, vol 4617. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 92–103

  • González-Pachón J, Romero C (1999) Distanced based consensus methods: a goal programming approach. Omega 27(3): 341–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Pachón J, Romero C (2001) Aggregation of partial ordinal rankings: an interval goal programming approach. Comput Oper Res 28(8): 827–834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashimoto AA (1997) A ranked voting system using a DEA/AR exclusion model: a note. Eur J Oper Res 97(3): 600–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CY, Lin MJ (1987) Group decision making under multiple criteria. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny J (1959) Mathematics without numbers. Daedalus 88: 571–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny JG, Snell LJ (1962) Preference ranking: an axiomatic approach. In: Mathematical models in the social choice sciences. Ginn, New York, pp 9–23

  • Kendall M (1962) Rank correlation methods. Hafner, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamler C, Eckert D, Mitlöhner J, Schlötterer C (2000) A distance based comparison of basic voting rules. Cent Eur J Oper Res 14(4): 377–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi H (2004) A comparison of some distance-based choice rules in ranking environments. Theory Decis 57: 5–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obata T, Ishii H (2003) A method for discriminating efficient candidates with ranked voting data. Eur J Oper Res 151(1): 233–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saari D, Merlin V (2000) A geometric examination of Kemeny’s rule. Soc Choice Welfare 17: 403–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Yang JB, Xu DL (2005) A preference aggregation method through the estimation of utility intervals. Comput Oper Res 32(8): 2027–2049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Chin KS, Yang JB (2006) Three new models for preference voting and aggregation. J Oper Res Soc 58: 1389–1393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young HP (1975) Social choice scoring functions. SIAM J Appl Math 28(4): 824–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento Economía, Métodos Cuantitativos e H. Económica, University Pablo de Olavide, Carr. de Utrera Km. 1, Sevilla, 41013, Spain

    Ignacio Contreras

Authors
  1. Ignacio Contreras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ignacio Contreras.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Contreras, I. A Distance-Based Consensus Model with Flexible Choice of Rank-Position Weights. Group Decis Negot 19, 441–456 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9127-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9127-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation