The likelihood of social choice violations in rank sum scoring: algorithms and evidence from NCAA cross country running

James Boudreau, Justin Ehrlich, Mian Farrukh Raza, Shane Sanders

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Recent contributions have used combinatorial algorithms to determine the likelihood of particular social choice violations in rank sum scoring. Given the broad importance of rank sum scoring (e.g., in non-parametric statistical testing, sporting competition, and mathematical competition), it is important to establish the level of ambiguity generated by this aggregation rule. Combinatorial likelihoods are naïve, however, in that they assume each possible outcome sequence for an event to be equally likely. We develop a computational algorithm to extend upon previous combinatorial results as to the likelihood of a violation of transitivity or independence in rank sum scoring. We use a similar computational scoring approach to analyze the empirically-observed likelihood of each such violation across fourteen NCAA Cross Country Championships. Within the data, rank sum scoring fails to specify a robust winning team (i.e., one that also rank sum wins against each possible subset of opponents) in 4 of 14 cases. Overall, we find that empirical likelihoods of social choice violations are consistently (significantly) overestimated by combinatorial expectations. In the NCAA data, we find correlated ability (quality) levels within team (group) and discuss this as a cause of lower empirical likelihoods. Combinatorial analysis proves reliable in predicting the order of empirical likelihoods across violation type and event setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-20
Number of pages20
JournalPublic Choice
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Dec 28 2017

Fingerprint

event
aggregation
evidence
cause
ability
Group
Violations
Scoring
Social choice
Empirical likelihood
Aggregation rules
Statistical testing
Transitivity
Combinatorial analysis

Keywords

  • Borda count
  • Collective decision making
  • Rank sum scoring
  • Social choice violations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

The likelihood of social choice violations in rank sum scoring : algorithms and evidence from NCAA cross country running. / Boudreau, James; Ehrlich, Justin; Raza, Mian Farrukh; Sanders, Shane.

In: Public Choice, 28.12.2017, p. 1-20.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d031d8f9de2d45f0aff1fd58e70a6bf8,
title = "The likelihood of social choice violations in rank sum scoring: algorithms and evidence from NCAA cross country running",
abstract = "Recent contributions have used combinatorial algorithms to determine the likelihood of particular social choice violations in rank sum scoring. Given the broad importance of rank sum scoring (e.g., in non-parametric statistical testing, sporting competition, and mathematical competition), it is important to establish the level of ambiguity generated by this aggregation rule. Combinatorial likelihoods are na{\"i}ve, however, in that they assume each possible outcome sequence for an event to be equally likely. We develop a computational algorithm to extend upon previous combinatorial results as to the likelihood of a violation of transitivity or independence in rank sum scoring. We use a similar computational scoring approach to analyze the empirically-observed likelihood of each such violation across fourteen NCAA Cross Country Championships. Within the data, rank sum scoring fails to specify a robust winning team (i.e., one that also rank sum wins against each possible subset of opponents) in 4 of 14 cases. Overall, we find that empirical likelihoods of social choice violations are consistently (significantly) overestimated by combinatorial expectations. In the NCAA data, we find correlated ability (quality) levels within team (group) and discuss this as a cause of lower empirical likelihoods. Combinatorial analysis proves reliable in predicting the order of empirical likelihoods across violation type and event setting.",
keywords = "Borda count, Collective decision making, Rank sum scoring, Social choice violations",
author = "James Boudreau and Justin Ehrlich and Raza, {Mian Farrukh} and Shane Sanders",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1007/s11127-017-0494-0",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--20",
journal = "Public Choice",
issn = "0048-5829",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The likelihood of social choice violations in rank sum scoring

T2 - algorithms and evidence from NCAA cross country running

AU - Boudreau, James

AU - Ehrlich, Justin

AU - Raza, Mian Farrukh

AU - Sanders, Shane

PY - 2017/12/28

Y1 - 2017/12/28

N2 - Recent contributions have used combinatorial algorithms to determine the likelihood of particular social choice violations in rank sum scoring. Given the broad importance of rank sum scoring (e.g., in non-parametric statistical testing, sporting competition, and mathematical competition), it is important to establish the level of ambiguity generated by this aggregation rule. Combinatorial likelihoods are naïve, however, in that they assume each possible outcome sequence for an event to be equally likely. We develop a computational algorithm to extend upon previous combinatorial results as to the likelihood of a violation of transitivity or independence in rank sum scoring. We use a similar computational scoring approach to analyze the empirically-observed likelihood of each such violation across fourteen NCAA Cross Country Championships. Within the data, rank sum scoring fails to specify a robust winning team (i.e., one that also rank sum wins against each possible subset of opponents) in 4 of 14 cases. Overall, we find that empirical likelihoods of social choice violations are consistently (significantly) overestimated by combinatorial expectations. In the NCAA data, we find correlated ability (quality) levels within team (group) and discuss this as a cause of lower empirical likelihoods. Combinatorial analysis proves reliable in predicting the order of empirical likelihoods across violation type and event setting.

AB - Recent contributions have used combinatorial algorithms to determine the likelihood of particular social choice violations in rank sum scoring. Given the broad importance of rank sum scoring (e.g., in non-parametric statistical testing, sporting competition, and mathematical competition), it is important to establish the level of ambiguity generated by this aggregation rule. Combinatorial likelihoods are naïve, however, in that they assume each possible outcome sequence for an event to be equally likely. We develop a computational algorithm to extend upon previous combinatorial results as to the likelihood of a violation of transitivity or independence in rank sum scoring. We use a similar computational scoring approach to analyze the empirically-observed likelihood of each such violation across fourteen NCAA Cross Country Championships. Within the data, rank sum scoring fails to specify a robust winning team (i.e., one that also rank sum wins against each possible subset of opponents) in 4 of 14 cases. Overall, we find that empirical likelihoods of social choice violations are consistently (significantly) overestimated by combinatorial expectations. In the NCAA data, we find correlated ability (quality) levels within team (group) and discuss this as a cause of lower empirical likelihoods. Combinatorial analysis proves reliable in predicting the order of empirical likelihoods across violation type and event setting.

KW - Borda count

KW - Collective decision making

KW - Rank sum scoring

KW - Social choice violations

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85039545692&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85039545692&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11127-017-0494-0

DO - 10.1007/s11127-017-0494-0

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85039545692

SP - 1

EP - 20

JO - Public Choice

JF - Public Choice

SN - 0048-5829

ER -