Encyclopedia of Algorithms

2016 Edition
| Editors: Ming-Yang Kao

Incentive Compatible Selection

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2864-4_186

Years and Authors of Summarized Original Work

  • 2006; Chen, Deng, Liu

Problem Definition

Ensuring truthful evaluation of alternatives in human activities has always been an important issue throughout history. In sports, in particular, such an issue is vital and practice of the fair-play principle has been consistently put forward as a matter of foremost priority. In addition to relying on the code of ethics and professional responsibility of players and coaches, the design of game rules is an important measure in enforcing fair play.

Ranking alternatives through pairwise comparisons (or competitions) is the most common approach in sports tournaments. Its goal is to find out the “true” ordering among alternatives through complete or partial pairwise competitions [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Such studies have been mainly based on the assumption that all the players play truthfully, i.e., with their maximal effort. It is, however, possible that some players form a coalition and cheat for group...


Algorithmic mechanism design Incentive compatible ranking Incentive compatible selection 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Chang P, Mendonca D, Yao X, Raghavachari M (2004) An evaluation of ranking methods for multiple incomplete round-robin tournaments. In: Proceedings of the 35th annual meeting of decision sciences institute, Boston, 20–23 Nov 2004Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen X, Deng X, Liu BJ (2006) On incentive compatible competitive selection protocol. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual international computing and combinatorics conference (COCOON’06), Taipei, 15–18 Aug 2006, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harary F, Moser L (1966) The theory of round robin tournaments. Am Math Mon 73(3):231–246MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jech T (1983) The ranking of incomplete tournaments: a mathematician’s guide to popular sports. Am Math Mon 90(4):246–266MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mendonca D, Raghavachari M (1999) Comparing the efficacy of ranking methods for multiple round-robin tournaments. Eur J Oper Res 123:593–605zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rubinstein A (1980) Ranking the participants in a tournament. SIAM J Appl Math 38(1):108–111MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steinhaus H (1950) Mathematical snapshots. Oxford University Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Computer Science and TechnologyTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina