The degree ratio ranking method for directed graphs

Abstract One of the most famous ranking methods for digraphs is the ranking by Copeland score. The Copeland score of a node in a digraph is the difference between its outdegree (i.e. its number of outgoing arcs) and its indegree (i.e. its number of ingoing arcs). In the ranking by Copeland score, a node is ranked higher, the higher is its Copeland score. In this paper, we deal with an alternative method to rank nodes according to their out- and indegree, namely ranking the nodes according to their degree ratio, i.e. the outdegree divided by the indegree. To avoid dividing by zero, we add 1 to both the out- as well as indegree of every node. We provide an axiomatization of the ranking by degree ratio using a clone property, which says that the entrance of a clone or a copy (i.e. a node that is in some sense similar to the original node) does not change the ranking among the original nodes. We also provide a new axiomatization of the ranking by Copeland score using the same axioms except that this method satisfies a different clone property. Finally, we modify the ranking by degree ratio by taking only the out- and indegree, but by definition assume nodes with indegree zero to be ranked higher than nodes with positive indegree. We provide an axiomatization of this ranking method using yet another clone property and a maximal property. In this way, we can compare the three ranking methods by their clone property.

[1]  G. Demange.  A Ranking Method Based on Handicaps , 2014, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[2]  Ye Du,et al.  Competitive economy as a ranking device over networks , 2015, Games Econ. Behav..

[3]  René van den Brink,et al.  The Outflow Ranking Method for Weighted Directed Graphs , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[4]  Moshe Tennenholtz,et al.  On the Axiomatic Foundations of Ranking Systems , 2005, IJCAI.

[5]  Thierry Marchant,et al.  The β-ranking and the β-measure for directed networks: Axiomatic characterizations , 2018, Soc. Networks.

[6]  Gabrielle Demange,et al.  Collective attention and ranking methods , 2013 .

[7]  D. Bouyssou,et al.  Ranking methods for valued preference relations: A characterization of a method based on leaving and entering flows , 1992 .

[8]  Gerhard J. Woeginger,et al.  An axiomatic characterization of the Hirsch-index , 2008, Math. Soc. Sci..

[9]  Geoffroy de Clippel,et al.  Impartial division of a dollar , 2008, J. Econ. Theory.

[10]  Gabriel Pinski,et al.  Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics , 1976, Inf. Process. Manag..

[11]  D. Bouyssou.  Ranking methods based on valued preference relations: A characterization of the net flow method , 1992 .

[12]  The Measurement of Intellectual Influence , 2004 .

[13]  René van den Brink,et al.  Ranking by outdegree for directed graphs , 2003, Discret. Math..

[14]  A. Sen,et al.  Collective Choice and Social Welfare , 2017 .

[15]  Sergey Brin,et al.  The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine , 1998, Comput. Networks.

[16]  A. Rubinstein.  Ranking the Participants in a Tournament , 1980 .

[17]  Dominique Henriet,et al.  The Copeland choice function an axiomatic characterization , 1985 .

[18]  Gabrielle Demange.  On the influence of a ranking system , 2012, Soc. Choice Welf..

[19]  Thierry Marchant,et al.  An axiomatic approach to bibliometric rankings and indices , 2014, J. Informetrics.

[20]  Gabrielle Demange.  Mutual rankings , 2017, Math. Soc. Sci..

[21]  René van den Brink,et al.  Measuring domination in directed networks , 2000, Soc. Networks.

[22]  Giora Slutzki,et al.  Scoring of web pages and tournaments—axiomatizations , 2006, Soc. Choice Welf..