Graph-based rank aggregation method for high-dimensional and partial rankings

References

• Ahn, B. S. (2017). Aggregation of ranked votes considering different relative gaps between rank positions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68, 1307–1311. doi:10.1057/s41274-016-0153-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aledo, J. A., Gámez, J. A., & Molina, D. (2016). Using extension sets to aggregate partial rankings in a flexible setting. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 290, 208–223. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2016.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aledo, J. A., Gámez, J. A., & Alejandro, R. (2017). Utopia in the solution of the Bucket Order Problem. Decision Support Systems, 97, 69–80. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2017.03.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aledo, J. A., Gámez, J. A., & Alejandro, R. (2018). Approaching rank aggregation problems by using evolution strategies: The case of the optimal bucket order problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 270, 982–998. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali, I., Cook, W. D., & Kress, M. (1986). On the minimum violations ranking of a tournament. Management Science, 32, 660–672. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.6.660
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amodio, S., D’Ambrosio, A., & Siciliano, R. (2016). Accurate algorithms for identifying the median ranking when dealing with weak and partial rankings under the Kemeny axiomatic approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 667–676. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argentini, A., & Blanzieri, E. (2012). Ranking aggregation based on belief function. IPMU 2012, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. 299, 511–520.
   Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. J. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 58, 328–346. doi:10.1086/256963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. J. (1952). Social choice and individual values. Journal of Political Economy, 60, 422–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baucells, M., & Sarin, R. K. (2003). Effect of Three Voting Rules on Resource Allocation Decisions. Management Science, 49, 1105–1118. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.8.1105.16400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borda, J. C. (1781). Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de L’Académie Royale Des Sciences,
   Google Scholar
• Chartier, T. P., Kreutzer, E., Langville, A. N., Pedings, K., & Yamamoto, Y. (2010). Minimum violations sports ranking using evolutionary optimization and binary integer linear program approaches. Proceedings of the Tenth Australian Conference on Mathematics and Computers in Sport, A. Bedford and M. Ovens, eds., MathSport (ANZIAM), New South Wales, Australia. 13–20.
   Google Scholar
• Cook, W. D., & Kress, M. (1990). A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Management Science, 36, 1302–1310. doi:10.1287/mnsc.36.11.1302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the web. WWW 2001, Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web. New York, 613–622.
   Google Scholar
• Filippo, R. (2011). Who is the best player ever? A complex network analysis of the history of professional tennis. Plos One, 6, e17249. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fishburn, P. C. (1977). Condorcet social choice functions. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 33, 469–489. doi:10.1137/0133030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolde, R., Laur, S., Adler, P., & Vilo, J. (2012). Robust rank aggregation for gene list integration and meta-analysis. Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 28, 573–580. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr709
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langville, A. N., & Meyer, C. D. (2012). Who is #1? The science of rating and ranking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moritz, R. L. V., Reich, E., Schwarz, M., Bernt, M., & Middendorf, M. (2015). Refined ranking relations for selection of solutions in multi objective metaheuristics. European Journal of Operational Research, 243, 454–464. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, L., Brin, S., Motwani, R., & Winograd, T. (1999). The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Technical Report 1999-0120, Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
   Google Scholar
• Park, J. (2005). On minimum violations ranking in paired comparisons. arXiv Preprint Physics, /0510242.
   Google Scholar
• Pedings, K. E., Langville, A. N., & Yamamoto, Y. (2012). A minimum violations ranking method. Optimization and Engineering, 13, 349–370. doi:10.1007/s11081-011-9135-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, M. J., Edwards, J. S., & Gear, A. E. (2000). Group preference aggregation rules: The results of a comparative analysis with in situ data. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 557–563. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600925
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly, B. (2002). Social Choice in the South Seas: Electoral Innovation and the Borda Count in the Pacific Island Countries. International Political Science Review, 23, 355–372. doi:10.1177/0192512102023004002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thieme, C., Prior, D., Tortosa-Ausina, E., & Gempp, R. (2016). Value added, educational accountability approaches and their effects on schools’ rankings: Evidence from Chile. European Journal of Operational Research, 253, 456–471. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2016.01.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y. M., Chin, K. S., & Yang, J. B. (2007). Three new models for preference voting and aggregation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 1389–1393. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, Y., Deng, Y., Wu, J., Deng, H. Z., & Lu, X. (2017). Comparison of rank aggregation methods based on inherent ability. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 64(7), 556–565. doi:10.1002/nav.21771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar