Joint aggregation of cardinal and ordinal evaluations with an application to a student paper competition

An important problem in decision theory concerns the aggregation of individual rankings/ratings into a collective evaluation. We illustrate a new aggregation method in the context of the 2007 MSOM’s student paper competition. The aggregation problem in this competition poses two challenges. Firstly, each paper was reviewed only by a very small fraction of the judges; thus the aggregate evaluation is highly sensitive to the subjective scales chosen by the judges. Secondly, the judges provided both cardinal and ordinal evaluations (ratings and rankings) of the papers they reviewed. The contribution here is a new robust methodology that jointly aggregates ordinal and cardinal evaluations into a collective evaluation. This methodology is particularly suitable in cases of incomplete evaluations—i.e., when the individuals evaluate only a strict subset of the objects. This approach is potentially useful in managerial decision making problems by a committee selecting projects from a large set or capital budgeting involving multiple priorities.

[1]  Hans Baumgartner,et al.  Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation , 2001 .

[2]  Dorit S. Hochbaum,et al.  Methodologies and Algorithms for Group-Rankings Decision , 2006, Manag. Sci..

[3]  S. French Decision Theory: An Introduction to the Mathematics of Rationality , 1986 .

[4]  Peter B. Smith Acquiescent Response Bias as an Aspect of Cultural Communication Style , 2004 .

[5]  Dorit S. Hochbaum,et al.  A Cut-Based Algorithm for the Nonlinear Dual of the Minimum Cost Network Flow Problem , 2004, Algorithmica.

[6]  M. Trick,et al.  Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election , 1989 .

[7]  Dorit S. Hochbaum,et al.  The separation, and separation-deviation methodology for group decision making and aggregate Ranking , 2010 .

[8]  Dorit S. Hochbaum,et al.  Ranking Sports Teams and the Inverse Equal Paths Problem , 2006, WINE.

[9]  P. Vincke,et al.  Note-A Preference Ranking Organisation Method: The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making , 1985 .

[10]  Erick Moreno-Centeno Use and analysis of new optimization techniques for decision theory and data mining , 2010 .

[11]  Dorit S. Hochbaum 50th Anniversary Article: Selection, Provisioning, Shared Fixed Costs, Maximum Closure, and Implications on Algorithmic Methods Today , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[12]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[13]  K. Bogart Preference structures I: Distances between transitive preference relations† , 1973 .

[14]  R. Keeney A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility , 1976 .

[15]  W. Cook,et al.  Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference , 1985 .

[16]  Anne-Wil Harzing Response Styles in Cross-national Survey Research , 2006 .

[17]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  The Implicit Hitting Set Approach to Solve Combinatorial Optimization Problems with an Application to Multigenome Alignment , 2013, Oper. Res..

[18]  T. L. Saaty A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[19]  Dorit S. Hochbaum,et al.  Solving the Convex Cost Integer Dual Network Flow Problem , 1999, Manag. Sci..

[20]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  Aide à la décision multicritère , 1975 .