A ranking method based on handicaps

Abstract

International audienceRanking methods are fundamental tools in many areas. Popular methods aggregate the statements of “experts” in different ways. As such, there are various reasonable ranking methods, each one of them more or less adapted to the environment under consideration. This paper introduces a new method, called the handicap-based method, and characterizes it through appealing properties. This method assigns not only scores to the items, but also weights to the experts. Scores and weights form an equilibrium for a relationship based on the notion of handicaps. The method is, in a sense made precise in the paper, the counterpart to the counting method in environments that require intensity invariance. Intensity invariance is a desirable property when the intensity of the experts' statements has to be controlled. Otherwise, both the counting and the handicap-based methods satisfy a property called homogeneity, which is a desirable property when cardinal statements matter, as is the case in many applications

Ranking authors using fractional counting of citations: An axiomatic approach

“…Notice that in our setting the citation graph that is used is not valued. This contrasts with the setting used by Palacios-Huerta and Volij (2004) and Demange (2014) for the study of iterative ranking procedures for journals. In these papers a link between journals j and j carries a valuation that is interpreted as the number of citations from j to j .…”

“…This would bring us closer to the rankingsà la PageRank (see, for the case of journals, Demange, 2014, Palacios-Huerta and Volij, 2004, Pinski and Narin, 1976; see also Volij, 2005, 2006).…”

“…The application of such recursive ranking methods have been the subject of many studies in the recent years (see Fragkiadiki andEvangelidis, 2014, Waltman andYan, 2014, for overviews). The case of the evaluation of journals has received special attention (Demange, 2014, PalaciosHuerta and Volij, 2004, Pinski and Narin, 1976.…”

Measuring Influence in Science: Standing on the Shoulders of Which Giants?

“…Finally, the article lies in the broader research program of applying the axiomatic method to the measurement and analysis of big data (Patty and Penn, 2015). The axiomatic analysis of the proposed index developed in Section 4 is particularly indebted to the recent work of 2 An elegant variation on this method is the handicap method proposed by Demange (2014), for which citations from journals citing (endogenously) influential journals weighs relatively more. characterize a large class of centrality measures in networks.…”

The Degree Measure as Utility Function over Positions in Networks

“…There exist recent studies that characterize ranking methods based on evaluations or citations which consider one-sided settings (e.g. Demange (2014)) and ranking methods in two-sided settings (e.g. Demange (2016)).…”