WO2009065211A1 - Decision making independent of irrelevant alternatives - Google Patents
Decision making independent of irrelevant alternatives Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO2009065211A1 WO2009065211A1 PCT/CA2008/001942 CA2008001942W WO2009065211A1 WO 2009065211 A1 WO2009065211 A1 WO 2009065211A1 CA 2008001942 W CA2008001942 W CA 2008001942W WO 2009065211 A1 WO2009065211 A1 WO 2009065211A1
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- alternatives
- alternative
- weighted preference
- preference lists
- list
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q10/00—Administration; Management
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q99/00—Subject matter not provided for in other groups of this subclass
Definitions
- the exemplary and non-limiting embodiments of this invention relate generally to decision making by systems, devices, apparatuses, or humans, based on preferences generated by humans or non- humans. More specifically the present invention relates to systems, methods, means or devices that encompass making decisions, with or without proportional representation, using a plurality of preferences about more than two alternatives which prevent some decision making flaws, encourage the sincere expression of preferences, and avert the impact of irrelevant alternatives.
- the decisions are made based on the preferences of more than one evaluator, either a human evaluator or automated evaluator, like a machine or a program, it is necessary to aggregate the decisions and decide about what is the best collective choice based on the preferences of evaluators.
- the choice set for an individual is determined by selection of the most preferred from a set of alternatives.
- the individual's preference between alternatives is itself the result of the aggregation of a variety of different considerations.
- Collective Choice is determined by combining multiple preferences to find a collective choice set from a set of alternatives.
- Relative majority or plurality voting system is based on asking only about the most preferred alternative from the participants and ignores a lot of information about second, third, a €
- Other vote aggregation systems ask for a preference list from participants that are either just sorted or are prioritized by a numeric weight assigned to them. Unfortunately, these systems also have well known problems.
- Robert Dahl says: The only rule compatible with decision-making in populist democracy is the majority principle. (Dahl 2006). Which he defines as: In choosing among alternatives, the alternative preferred by the greater number is selected. Dahl says: 'In order for x to be government policy it is a necessary and sufficient condition that for every other alternative, the number who prefer x to the alternative is greater than the number who prefer the alternative to x' (Robert Dahl, 1956); unfortunately, finding such an alternative is not easy.
- the number in front of each preference list is the weight, the count or relative frequency of evaluators with that preference, and the sign '>' means that Andrew is preferred over Brian.
- the first line means that a group of evaluators with a combined weight of 55, prefer Andrew over Brian. There is no ambiguity about the collective choice and various voting systems including Relative Majority, IRV, Ranked pairs, Borda Count all select Andrew.
- WPL Weighted Preference Lists
- Another difficulty in collective decision making is when proportional representation is desired in decision when more than one alternative should be selected. If the grouped preferences of the evaluators between three alternatives (A), (B) and (C) are as shown in the following list, and in the context of a decision two alternatives should be selected.
- the first list has a clear majority but selecting (A) and (C) based on the preferences of majority means ignoring the preferences of 41% of evaluators that have (B) as their preference. In many occasions, whenever possible we want to select the collective choice set so that it proportionally represents the preferences. However, this is not always an easy task, for example:
- a spoiler in a collective choice procedure is considered a combination of one or more alternatives that none are the collective choice among a number of alternatives but after their removal, individually or together, from Weighted Preference Lists (WPL), change the collective choice found by the same procedure.
- WPL Weighted Preference Lists
- One type of spoiler is a group of alternatives that have spoiler effect when removed together and, hereafter, is called 'compound spoiler'.
- Some embodiments of this invention process the preferences expressed by evaluators and avert the impact of spoilers on each round of alternative selection during a decision making process. Some of the embodiments identify the spoilers according to the definition mentioned above and temporarily exclude them from the decision in each step. Some embodiments iteratively and recursively use the invention to make sure that the ripple effects of spoilers on decision are averted.
- Some embodiments of this invention select a single alternative or an ordered list of alternatives by restricting the impact of spoilers and constructing a majority based on collective choice procedures without considering proportionality (which will be referred to hereafter as 'Collaborative Plurality Methods').
- 'Collaborative Plurality Methods' select a Proportional Collective Choice Set from alternatives in a given set of Weighted Preference Lists with proportional representation while restricting the impact of spoilers (which will be referred to hereafter as 'Collaborative Proportional Contribution Methods').
- Some embodiments of 'Collaborative Proportional Contribution Methods' may use 'Collaborative Plurality Methods' while deciding which alternative should be temporarily ignored in each round of selection.
- the collaborative approach of this invention is not only averting the impact of irrelevant alternatives on the collective choice but also can prevent the true expression of preferences by the evaluators to become self defeating.
- the embodiments of this invention in tools, apparatuses, and systems are able to make decisions that are insensitive to introduction of irrelevant alternatives and as a result are more reliable. And when this invention is used in group decision making, the voters will be able to hereby express their preferences without worrying that by this expression they may be helping an outcome they don't prefer. As a result when applied to group decision making and elections the embodiments of this invention will encourage sincerity and reduce the necessity for tactical voting.
- Some embodiments can be applied to classification, selection and prediction problems.
- Various embodiments may use plurality, other voting techniques or collective choice procedures; some may apply this invention in manual or automatic tallying, vote calculation and, decision making systems, group decision support system, executive decision support systems.
- the embodiments of this invention can be, among many others, in systems, devices, methods, means, apparatuses, and software programs or embedded programs in hardware devices where a decision on a number of alternatives based on a plurality of inputs are made.
- FIG. Ia is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List or an Independent Collective Choice using a given set of Weighted Preference Lists.
- FIG. Ib is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List or an Independent Collective Choice using a given set of Weighted Preference Lists with early majority detection.
- FIG. 2a is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- FIG. 2b is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers, using steps to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List when deciding which spoilers should be signed out.
- FIG. 2c is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers, making a ranked List of Spoilers when deciding which spoilers should be signed out.
- FIG. 2d is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers further including an early termination option.
- FIG. 3a is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find the highest ranked alternative as well as to make a ranked list of alternatives applying a collective choice procedure repeatedly.
- FIG. 3b is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find the highest ranked alternative as well as to make a ranked list of alternatives applying a plurality method repeatedly.
- FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to create a List of Spoilers using given Weighted Preference Lists.
- FIG. 5a is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find a preferred collective choice using a replica of given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers .
- FIG. 5b is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find a preferred collective choice using a replica of given Weighted Preference Lists, while restricting the impact of spoilers, recursively performing the steps to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers, when deciding which spoilers should be removed.
- FIG. 5c is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to find a preferred collective choice using a replica of given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers, making a ranked List of Spoilers when deciding which spoilers should be removed.
- FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing the basic steps performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to create a List of Spoilers using a supplied set of Weighted Preference Lists.
- FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing the basic steps if performed, in some embodiments of the invention, to select a collective choice set from alternatives in a set of Weighted Preference Lists with proportional representation.
- FIG. 8 shows the functional components and their interconnections within a system that may be used in accordance with, or to implement, some embodiments of the invention.
- One aspect of the invention provides methods to find a preferred alternative, using weighted preference lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- Yet another aspect of the invention provides methods to creat a list of selected preferred Independent Collective Choice alternatives, using weighted preference lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- Yet another aspect of the invention provides methods for selection of a plurality of alternatives with proportional representation , using weighted preference lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- Yet another aspect of the invention provides a system that finds a preferred alternative, using weighted preference lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- Yet another aspect of the invention provides a system that creats a list of selected preferred Independent Collective Choice alternatives, using weighted preference lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- Yet another aspect of the invention provides a system that selects of a plurality of alternatives with proportional representation, using weighted preference lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- Embodiments of this invention use a set of Weighted Preference Lists to make collective decisions.
- a decision is presented as selecting one or more alternatives from a set of alternatives.
- the decision is an attempt to pick, among many possible examples, the alternatives that maximize, minimize, or optimize an outcome or utility, best match, apply to, relate to, are relevant for, correspond to or are appropriate and may be part of, among many other things, microprocessor based or computerized control systems, a personal decision support system, an executive decision support system, a group decision support system or an election system.
- the decision is collective in the sense that is based on a plurality of preference lists, even when one decision maker is using a system, or one processor is configured to execute the instructions embeded in a device or apparatus, working by relying on this invention.
- the collective decision sometimes is choosing a single alternative and sometimes is choosing a number of alternatives among the possible alternatives.
- the result when the decision is about choosing a single alternative, the result is called a collective choice and when it is about choosing a number of alternatives among the possible alternatives, the result is called a collective choice set.
- the collective choice set When the collective choice set is sorted according to collective preference, the result is called collective choice ordered list.
- the result When a number of alternatives are selected in a way that they represent the proportions of the preferences of evaluators about the alternatives, the result is called Proportional Collective Choice Set.
- Each Weighted Preference List is a ranked list of a set of alternatives with a weight attached to the list.
- Each ranked alternative may have an ordinal scale or score number attached to that alternative
- Each Weighted Preference List may be, but is not limited to, a grouping of identical preferences of a plurality of evaluators about a set of sorted or scored alternatives, or a ranking of preferences by an evaluator about a set of sorted or scored alternatives.
- the preferences may be collected in many different ways or from different sources including but not limited to: surveys, polls, studies, elections, data acquisition systems, voting, signals arriving, group discussions, data in databases and data warehouses, surveillance, experiments, observations.
- Some embodiments let a number of alternatives be on a Weighted Preference List and some may require all of the alternatives be on Weighted Preference Lists. Some embodiments of this invention may require the number of alternatives in the lists be the same which means every evaluator must include the same number of alternatives in his/her/its evaluation, other embodiments may allow the number of alternatives in Weighted Preference Lists be different which means that evaluators may just express their evaluations about a subset of alternatives.
- some embodiments may consider the highest ranked alternative in all lists with same weight, which means all not mentioned alternatives being considered below the last mentioned alternative. Some embodiments may penalize those who have voted for less number of alternatives by considering their least favored alternative at the level of least favored alternatives of complete preference lists.
- Some embodiments of this invention may allow a score be attached to the alternatives in a list, and other embodiments may just accept a ranking of alternatives on an ordinal scale. Some embodiments of this invention may require the rank, score or ordinal scale assigned to alternatives to be unique for every alternative in each list, and other embodiments may allow the ranking, score or ordinal scale to be similar for some alternatives in the each list that indicates that the evaluators with that preference list are indifferent when comparing those alternatives. Some embodiments may allow the evaluators to rank some alternatives at the top and some alternatives at the bottom of their preference and will consider all the not mentioned alternatives with equal score or ranking in the middle.
- Different embodiments of the invention may store the lists on different media including but not limited to: on paper, on volatile or non- volatile electronic memory, magnetic or optical storage devices.
- the lists may be organized in many different ways including but not limited to spread sheets, tables, charts, databases, data warehouses, files, trees, graphs, networks.
- the flowcharts and the methods of the invention may be performed by humans or by electronic machines.
- the weight is a number assigned to each Weighted Preference List. It may be, but is not limited to, the count, vote count, frequency, relative frequency of evaluators having same preference, or a presentation of power, privilege, trust, significance, confidence, reliability, expertise of each evaluator or a group of evaluators having same preferences. It may also be, but is not limited to, a result of combining the count, vote count, frequency, relative frequency, power, privilege, trust, significance, confidence, reliability and expertise of evaluators having same preferences.
- the weight may be the result of calculations by giving all the evaluators equal or different power and in the later case it may be a presentation of a point system that presents among many possibilities the confidence or importance of the evaluator.
- Weighted Preference Lists may be made from similar individual preferences. For example, if John prefers 'Page A' of a website over 'Page B', and 'Page B' over 'page C, and Mary and Mark have the same preference, but Andrew prefers 'Page B' of a website over 'Page A', and 'Page A' over 'Page C. The preference of John, Mary and Mark are listed together with a count or frequency of three and the preference of Andrew is in another list with a frequency or count of one, as shown in the following list:
- Weighted Preference Lists can be presented by their percentage or relative frequency, as shown in the following list:
- Weighted Preference Lists may be made manually by grouping similar preferences and counting them or can be done automatically using machines.
- the evaluators may be a plurality of humans, non-human means of evaluation, or a mix of humans with non-humans.
- the evaluator may be, among many other things; people, machines with or without artificial intelligence, sensors, signals, programs or the programs' output or state, or observed attributes or behaviors.
- Each evaluator may express his/her/its preferences about some alternatives, among many different ways, by ranking or rating a number of alternatives, behaving differently related to different alternatives, or having different attributes at different levels, or show different attitude toward different alternatives.
- An alternative may be, among many other things, a value, a candidate or person, an opinion, a prediction, an attribute, an option, a behavior, a category, an advertisement, an entertainment selection, a document, place, a product, a thing or information, an action to be performed, a set of values, a range of numeric values, a group of attributes, a classification of objects, a category, a set of measurements, a future behavior, a set of future behaviors, a set of options, a set of predictions, a set of candidates, a set of products, a set of objects, a set of solutions for problems, a set of observations, a set of controllable parameters, and a set of data collected from a group of sensors or their combinations.
- a spoiler in a collective choice procedure is considered a combination of one or more alternatives that none are the collective choice, but their removal, individually or together, from Weighted Preference Lists, affects the collective choice selected by the same procedure.
- a group of alternatives that have spoiler effect when removed together is called 'compound spoiler'.
- a collective choice or a collective choice ordered list or a Proportional Collective Choice Set is considered independent if it is decided by one of the embodiments of this invention in which the process is designed to evade the dependency of the outcome to the removal of unselected alternatives from Weighted Preference Lists.
- B and C are tied for being the highest ranked alternative since both are the top choice for 39 evaluators.
- some embodiments of this invention use the pair wise comparison of the tied alternatives if they are only two, or Ranked Pairs or Schulze method if the tie is between more than two alternatives. Some embodiments use scoring collective decision making procedures like Borda Count just to break the tie. Some embodiments may determine and declare these alternative collective choice procedures ahead of the preference collection phase to prevent any possibility of manipulation (by changing the procedure) after the results are gathered. Some may keep these procedures concealed to prevent tactical voting.
- the tie can be broken by randomly selecting one of the tied alternatives or even going back to the evaluators and asking about their preferences about the tied alternatives. Sometimes it is also possible to accept all of the tied alternatives.
- FIG. Ia is a flow chart showing the basic steps used in process 100, according to some embodiments of the invention. It finds an Independent Collective Choice or produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List using a given set of Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 200 a preferred collective choice is found based on the information in a given set of Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of combinations of one or more alternatives that none are the collective choice among a number of alternatives but after their removal, individually or together, from Weighted Preference Lists, change collective choice found by the same procedure.
- This is a Collaborative Plurality Method because the evaluators are not insisting on their topmost choices and not only averts the impact of irrelevant alternatives on the collective choice but also prevents true expression of preferences by the evaluators to become self defeating.
- the Independent Collective Choice is considered to be the highest ranked alternative that was just found in step 200.
- step 130 if an ordered list of Independent Collective Choices should not be created the decision process is concluded and said independent collective choice is decision outcome. This results a quick end for those situations that only a single alternative is desired to be selected as the collective choice. This may be used in elections in single-member district electoral systems.
- step 150 the Independent Collective Choice just selected is added to a list that is called the Independent Collective Choice Ordered List shown as list 140.
- step 160 the Independent Collective Choice is deleted from Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 170 a decision is made to continue finding other alternatives to be added to Independent Collective Choice Ordered List based on some criteria including, but not limited to: If a predetermined number of collective preferences are selected, a deadline has passed or if based on the information processed so far, a decision is made or a task is accomplished, or if all the alternatives have been deleted from the Weighted Preference Lists.
- steps 200 to 170 are repeated using the Weighted Preference Lists with remaining alternatives.
- EXAMPLE 1 An embodiment of the invention, implementing process 100 using plurality method, in a computerized decision support system used for deciding about the production of a drug
- the number in front of each preference list is the weight of that preference list which in this case is the count of the researchers having that preference.
- Step 200 analyzes that 'Drug B' would be selected, but if 'Drug C is removed from Weighted Preference Lists then 'Drug A' will be the collective choice. Sixty people prefer 'Drug A' to 'Drug B' but the introduction 'Drug C splits their vote and 'Drug B' is chosen as a result. Here 'Drug C is considered to be the spoiler. Drugs A and B don't have this property. If 'Drug A' is removed 'Drug B' will be selected with even more preferences (no change in the outcome) and 'Drug B' itself is not considered a spoiler based on the definition above. Step 200 will process the given lists without 'Drug C to restrict the impact of the spoiler:
- step 110 'Drug A' will be selected as the Independent Collective Choice.
- step 130 If only one Independent Collective Choice should be selected, 'Drug A' will be the desired answer but in this example an ordered list of collective choices is desired; therefore, step 150 will be the next step.
- step 150 'Drug A' will be added to the Independent Collective Choice Ordered List shown as 140.
- step 160 'Drug A' will be deleted from Weighted Preference Lists resulting WPL shown below:
- step 170 it is decided that more alternatives must be selected and in step 200, Weighted Preference Lists shown in WPL will be used but there can not be any spoilers between two alternatives B and C, which will result in a highest ranked alternative as:
- step 110 B is selected as an Independent Collective Choice and in step 150, B will be add as the next choice to Independent Collective Choice Ordered List 140, which results:
- step 160 B is deleted from given Weighted Preference Lists resulting WPL shown below:
- step 170 it is decided that more alternatives must be selected. In steps 200 and 110 to 160, C will be selected as Independent Collective Choice and will be added as the next choice to Independent Collective Choice Ordered List.
- the embodiments of this invention make the same decision before and after introduction of an alternative except in situations like when the introduced alternative is so preferred that it becomes the collective choice itself.
- Step 200 can be done differently in different embodiments of this invention. Different embodiment of this invention can use different collective choice procedures while finding the highest ranked alternative. For the example above, embodiments of this invention using any of plurality, Ranked pairs, or Borda count all will choose (A>B>C) as Independent Collective Choice Ordered List after they restrict the impact of the spoilers.
- FIG. Ib is a flow chart showing the basic steps used in process 100, according to some embodiments of the invention. It finds an Independent Collective Choice or produces an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List using a given set of Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 101 if the weight of one of the lists in given Weighted Preference Lists, is greater than half of the total sum of weights of said given Weighted Preference Lists, in step 105, the alternative at the top of that list is considered the Independent Collective Choice and that list is considered the Independent Collective Choice Ordered List and is copied to list 140 and the process 100 is concluded. If the weight of none of the lists is greater than half of the total sum of weights, step 200 is performed. The rest of FIG. Ib is exactly as FIG. Ia described above.
- FIG. 2a is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 200 by some embodiments of this invention to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- step 300 a highest ranked alternative called Strong Alternative is found using said set of Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed spoilers.
- the Strong Alternative can be found by a variety of methods or collective choice procedures and will be used as a reference point in next steps.
- Signed spoilers are those alternatives that are detected in this process as spoilers in step 400 and are signed in step 214. At the first iteration of step 300, there is no signed spoiler.
- some embodiments of the invention generate a sequence of alternatives using given Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed spoilers by applying one or more preferential voting procedures selected from the group consisting of but not limited to: a Nanson's method, a Baldwin method, a Ranked Pairs method, a Coombs' method, a Schulze method, a Kemeny- Young method, a Condorcet scoring method, a Borda Count method, a Copeland's method, a rating summation method, and a plurality method.
- Other embodiments apply a collective choice procedure repeatedly as shown in FIG. 3a or FIG. 3b using given Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed spoilers. In many examples described hereafter, where the repeated application of plurality in process 300 is used, collective choice procedures could be used as well.
- step 400 the Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed spoilers are analyzed and a List of Spoilers (list 204) is created.
- list 204 a List of Spoilers.
- Some embodiments of this invention create an ordered List of Spoilers as part of process 400 and some just create a set of spoilers. Each spoiler can be simple (made of one alternative) or compound (made of a plurality of alternatives).
- Step 208 if no spoiler is detected, any signs added in the current process to the said Weighted Preference Lists are cleared in step 206, and this process is concluded while the last Strong Alternative found is considered as the desired preferred collective choice. If any spoiler has been detected and List of Spoilers is not empty, step 214 will follow.
- step 214 the spoilers in the List of Spoilers are analyzed, and the least favored among them is found and signed out of Weighted Preference Lists.
- alternatives in a compound spoiler are the least favored alternatives, all members of the compound are signed out.
- Some embodiments sign all the members of the compound spoiler if one of the members of a compound spoiler is the least preferred alternative.
- Some embodiments sign a plurality or all of spoilers in said List of Spoilers, out of said Weighted Preference Lists. Then steps 300, 400, 208 and the rest of steps are applied until no spoilers detected.
- EXAMPLE 2 An embodiment the invention, implementing process 100 using Borda Count, in a computerized decision support system used for deciding about the production of a drug
- step 200 Borda count is used.
- step 300 using Borda Count and sorting the candidates with the most points the result will be: Copy of Given WPL for process 300:
- step 400 the Weighted Preference Lists are analyzed and it is found that the 'Drug C is the only spoiler because its removal changes the highest ranked alternative to (A) using the same, Borda Count, method. Therefore, C is added to the List of Spoilers.
- Step 208 finds a spoiler in List of Spoilers and in step 214, C is found the least favored spoiler and is signed out from Weighted Preference Lists which will result the weighted reference lists to be as shown below wherein signed alternative is in lowercase letters:
- step 300 a Strong Alternative based on WPL excluding signed spoiler is found:
- step 400 the Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed spoilers are analyzed but there can not be any spoilers between two alternatives. Therefore in step 208, the List of Spoilers will be found empty and in step 206, all the signs in Weighted Preference Lists are cleared. And the last Strong Alternative found is determined to be:
- step 110 in process 100, therefore 'Drug A' will be selected as the Independent Collective Choice.
- 'Drug A' herein is called an Independent Collective Choice because the embodiments of this invention using Borda Count method would choose 'Drug A' if 'Drug C was not introduced as an alternative and will choose 'Drug A' if choice 'Drug C is introduced as an alternative.
- EXAMPLE 3 An embodiment the invention, implementing process 100 using Ranked Pairs, in a computerized decision support system used for deciding about the production of a drug
- step 200 if Ranked Pairs is used, in step 300, a ranked list of alternatives called Strong Alternative is found as shown below:
- step 400 the Weighted Preference Lists are analyzed and it is found that the 'Drug C is the only spoiler, because its removal changes the highest ranked alternative to (A) when using the same Ranked Pairs method. Therefore, C is added to the List of Spoilers. Notice that removing (A) doesn't change the highest ranked alternative. Therefore, the list of spoilers will be:
- step 214 C is found to be the least favored spoiler and is signed out from Weighted Preference Lists which will result the weighted reference lists to be as shown in the following WPL wherein signed alternative is in lowercase letter:
- step 300 a Strong Alternative based on WPL excluding signed alternative is found as shown in the following lists.
- step 400 the Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed spoilers are analyzed but there can not be any spoilers between two alternatives. Therefore in step 208, the List of Spoilers will be found empty and all the signs in Weighted Preference Lists are cleared and the last Strong Alternative found, is determined to be:
- step 110 in process 100, therefore 'Drug A' will be selected as the Independent Collective Choice.
- 'Drug A' is called an Independent Collective Choice because the embodiments of this invention using Ranked Pairs would choose 'Drug A', if choice 'Drug C was not introduced as an alternative, and will choose 'Drug A', if choice 'Drug C is introduced as an alternative.
- FIG. 2b is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 200 in some embodiments of this invention to find a preferred collective choice using said Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers. It recursively uses steps in process 100, when deciding which spoilers should be signed out, and will ensure that the existence of irrelevant alternatives among spoilers, when finding the least favored spoiler, will not influence the outcomes.
- Steps 300, 400, 206 and 208 are identical to FIG. 2a described before.
- Step 208 if no spoiler is detected, step 206 will follow and any signs added in the current process to the Weighted Preference Lists are cleared and the process is concluded with the last found Strong Alternative considered as the desired preferred collective choice. If any spoiler is detected and List of Spoilers is not empty, step 216 will follow.
- step 216 to create a sorted list of spoilers, process 100 is recursively employed to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List using a copy of said Weighted Preference Lists including only the alternatives in said List of Spoilers. If the number of spoilers detected in List of Spoilers is greater than two then some of them may act as spoilers for others. The outcome of step 216 is an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers and is shown as list 215.
- step 217 at least one of the lowest ranked spoilers in Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers is signed out of Weighted Preference Lists.
- alternatives in a compound spoiler are the least favored alternatives, all members of the compound are signed out.
- Some embodiments sign all the members of the compound spoiler if one of the members of a compound spoiler is the lowest ranked alternative.
- Some embodiments sign a plurality or all of spoilers in said Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers, out of said Weighted Preference Lists.
- EXAMPLE 4 An embodiment the invention, implementing process 100 using Borda Count, in a computerized executive information system deciding about investment on technologies
- the number in front of each preference list is the weight of that preference list, which in this case is the presentation of a combination of the number of technical advisors with that preference, and the confidence of CIO on those advisors.
- Borda Count method 'Technology B' would be selected.
- Step 300 using a copy of Weighted Preference Lists applying Borda Count, finds a Strong Alternative. According to calculations above, is created as shown below:
- step 400 the Weighted Preference Lists are analyzed without 'Technology C:
- step 216 to create a sorted list of spoilers, process 100 is recursively applied using a copy of Weighted Preference Lists including only the spoilers.
- Step 300 using a copy of Weighted Preference Lists without C, applying Borda Count finds a Strong Alternative as shown below:
- step 400 the Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed spoilers are analyzed and no spoilers are found. Therefore in step 208, the List of Spoilers will be found empty and in step 206, all the signs in Weighted Preference Lists are cleared and the last Strong Alternative found is determined to be:
- step 110 in process 100, 'Technology A' will be selected as the Independent Collective Choice.
- FIG. 2c is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 200 in some embodiments of this invention to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers by making a ranked list of spoilers when deciding which spoilers should be signed out. It can use a collective choice procedure that creates a ranked list of spoilers like Borda Count or can use process 300, as explained in FIG. 3a and FIG. 3b.
- Steps 300, 400, 206 and 208 are identical to FIG. 2a described before.
- Step 208 if no spoiler is detected, step 206 will follow and any signs added in the current process to the Weighted Preference Lists are cleared and the process is concluded and the Strong Alternative last selected is the desired preferred collective choice outcome. If any spoiler is detected and List of Spoilers is not empty, step 219 will follow.
- a sorted list of spoilers, a ranked list of alternatives is made.
- Some embodiments of the invention generate a sequence of alternatives using given Weighted Preference Lists including only alternatives in the list of spoilers by applying one or more preferential voting methods selected from the group consisting of but not limited to: a Nanson's method, a Baldwin method, a Ranked Pairs method, a Coombs' method, a Schulze method, a Kemeny- Young method, a Condorcet scoring method, a Borda Count method, a Copeland's method, a rating summation method, and a plurality method.
- Other embodiments apply a collective choice procedure repeatedly to make a ranked list of alternatives by applying process 300 shown in FIG. 3a or FIG. 3b using given Weighted Preference Lists including only alternatives in the list of spoilers.
- the result of step 219 is a ranked List of Spoilers shown as list 218.
- step 220 at least one of the lowest ranked spoilers in Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers is signed out of Weighted Preference Lists.
- alternatives in a compound spoiler are the least favored alternatives, all members of the compound are signed out.
- Some embodiments sign all the members of the compound spoiler if one of the members of a compound spoiler is the lowest ranked alternative.
- Some embodiments sign a plurality or all of spoilers in said Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers, out of said Weighted Preference Lists.
- steps 300 and other steps in process 200 are repeated until no spoilers are detected.
- FIG. 2d is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 200 by some embodiments of this invention to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers with early termination option. This way a decision can be made after some spoilers are signed and before all the spoilers are signed and excluded to make faster decisions.
- step 300 a Strong Alternative is found using said set of Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed spoilers similar to what was explained for FIG. 2a.
- step 203 if a predetermined number of spoilers have been removed, a dead line has passed or based on some other criteria, the search for more spoilers stops and in step 206, signs will be cleared; otherwise search for spoilers will continue in step 400.
- Steps 400, 208, 300 and 206 are performed the same as process explained in FIG. 2a.
- FIG. 3a is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 300 by some embodiments of this invention for finding the highest ranked alternative as well as making a ranked list of alternatives using provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists by applying a collective choice procedure repeatedly.
- This method can create a ranked list of alternatives.
- Another one of many advantages is that it doesn't simply use a preferential voting system to select one or more weak alternatives to eliminate. It creates a ranked list by applying a collective choice procedure removing highest ranked alternatives repeatedly before deciding which alternative is the lowest ranked alternative, then records and erases the lowest ranked alternative found in this way from said lists and repeats this process until it finds the highest ranked at the end.
- This process can use 'collective choice procedures that declare a single winner' repeatedly to create a ranked List of Spoilers.
- step 302 an operational copy of the provided copy Weighted Preference Lists is made which is shown as list 303.
- step 305 it is verified that there are more than one alternative in the operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists. If there is only one alternative remaining, that alternative will be considered the highest ranked alternative.
- a collective choice procedure is applied to find the best choice in said operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists.
- the collective choice procedure can be selected from the group consisting of but not limited to: a Nanson's method, a Baldwin method, a Ranked Pairs method, a Coombs' method, a Schulze method, a Kemeny- Young method, a Condorcet scoring method, a Borda Count method, a Copeland's method, a rating summation method, and a plurality method.
- step 318 the chosen alternative is removed from operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists and then steps 305, 310 and 318 are repeated until only one alternative remains in the operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 305 if there is only one alternative remaining, step 320 will follow.
- step 320 it is checked if a ranked list is required and step 321 will add the remaining alternative at the top of ranked list of alternatives which is shown as list 322 and in step 323, it is erased from the provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 324 it is decided whether to continue with 302. If there is no more alternatives in provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists, step 326 will be performed. If there are more than one alternative in provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists then the steps 302 to 324 are repeated with fewer and fewer number of alternatives in provided copy of Weighted Preference List.
- process 300 that are searching for a collective choice set, can consider all the remaining alternatives in provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists as collective choice set when there is a predetermined number of alternatives remaining.
- step 326 the last remaining alternative is considered as the highest ranked alternative and the process is concluded.
- the operational and provided copy of Weighted Preference List are not needed any more.
- Some embodiments of process 300 can use temporarily excluding techniques instead removing and erasing using a copy of the Weighted Preference Lists.
- FIG. 3b is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 300 by some embodiments of this invention to find the highest ranked alternative as well as to make a ranked list of alternatives from a provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists by applying plurality collective choice procedure repeatedly.
- step 302 an operational copy of the provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists is made which is shown as list 303.
- step 305 it is verified that there are more than one alternative in the operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists. If there is only one alternative remaining, that alternative will be considered the highest ranked alternative.
- step 305 If in step 305 more than one alternative are found in the operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists, then in step 312, the first choice of each preference list in said operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists is selected. In step 314, for each first choice selected, sum of the weight of said Weighted Preference Lists that have said first choice is calculated. In step 316, the alternative with the highest aggregated weight among said first choices is selected as the highest ranked alternative.
- step 318 the chosen alternative is removed from operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists and then steps 305 to 318 are repeated until only one alternative remains in the operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 305 if there is only one alternative remaining, step 320 will follow.
- step 320 it is checked if a ranked list is required and step 321 will add the remaining alternative at the top of ranked list of alternatives which is shown as list 322 and in step 323, it is erased from the provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists.
- Some embodiments of process 300 can use temporarily excluding techniques instead removing and erasing using a copy of the Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 324 it is decided whether to continue with 302. If there is no more alternatives in provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists, step 326 will be performed. If there are more than one alternative in provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists then the steps 302 to 324 are repeated with fewer and fewer number of alternatives in provided copy of Weighted Preference List.
- step 326 the last remaining alternative is considered as the highest ranked alternative and the process is concluded.
- the operational and provided copy of Weighted Preference List are not needed any more.
- Some embodiments of process 300 can use temporarily excluding techniques instead removing and erasing using a copy of the Weighted Preference Lists.
- EXAMPLE 5 An embodiment of this invention used in a voting machine used in a state wide election to find the highest ranked alternative.
- step 200 will be performed.
- step 300 of process 200 some embodiments use flowchart in FIG. 3b that uses a plurality method repeatedly.
- step 302 in FIG. 3b an operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists is created as:
- step 305 the Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists are found with more than one alternative.
- step 310 to 318 George is removed from said Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists because he has the most aggregated weight.
- step 305 the Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists are found with more than one alternative.
- step 310 to 318 Albert is removed Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists because he has the most aggregated weight.
- step 305 the Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists are found with one alternative.
- step 320 it is decided that step 321 can be skipped since step 200 of process 300 doesn't need a ranked list.
- Ralph is erased from the provided Weighted Preference Lists:
- step 305 the Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists are found with more than one alternative.
- step 310 to 318 Albert is removed from Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists, because he has the most aggregated weight.
- step 305 the Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists are found with one alternative.
- step 320 it is decided that step 321 can be skipped since step 200 of process 300 doesn't need a ranked list.
- step 323 George is erased from the provided Weighted Preference Lists:
- step 305 the Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists are found with one alternative.
- step 320 it is decided that step 321 can be skipped since step 200 of process 300 doesn't need a ranked list.
- step 323 Albert is erased from the provided Weighted Preference Lists and in step 326 is considered as the Highest Ranked Alternative
- step 400 no spoilers will be found and in step 208, process 200 is concluded and Albert as the highest ranked alternative will be considered the Independent Collective Choice in step 110 and step 130 will decide to end the process 100.
- EXAMPLE 6 Embodiment of process 300 in FIG. 3b to create a ranked list of webpages in a search engine to be presented in oreder to the client.
- the number in front of each preference list is the number of visitors who have that preference list.
- the search engine monitoring these pages wants to provide a ranked list of these pages. For the election of the highest ranked page, If the election system is plurality only the first choice of the voters matter and Bob will be elected with relative majority. If the voting system is Runoff Voting or Instant Runoff Voting, the candidate with lowest first votes (Alan) will be taken out and the first votes after that will be considered.
- step 302 an operational copy of the provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists is created:
- step 305 it is confirmed that more than one alternative is in the Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 312 the first choice of each preference list in the operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists is selected which are Bob, Carol and Alan.
- step 314 for each first choice selected, the weight of Weighted Preference Lists that have said first choice is summed together.
- step 316 the alternative with the highest aggregated weight among said first choices (Bob) is selected.
- step 318 Bob is removed from operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 305 it is verified that the operational copy Weighted Preference Lists have more than one alternative and steps 312, 314 and 316 will result in selection of Alan as the highest ranked alternative which is removed from operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists in step 318.
- step 305 only one alternative is found in the Operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 320 it is noticed that a ranked list of alternatives is required and, in step 321, that alternative, Carol, is added to ranked list of alternatives, as the highest ranked alternative so far.
- step 323 Carol is erased from provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists which results in:
- step 324 this list is found not empty and step 302 is repeated which creates an operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists:
- step 305 it is verified that the Weighted Preference Lists have more than one alternative and step 312, 314 and 316 will result in selection of Alan as the highest ranked alternative which is removed from operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists in step 318.
- step 305 only one alternative is found in the Weighted Preference Lists and that alternative.
- Step 320 will decide that step 321 should add Bob to ranked list of alternatives as the highest ranked alternative so far.
- step 323 Bob is erased from provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists which results in:
- step 302 is repeated which creates an operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists:
- Step 305 finds one alternative in operational Weighted Preference Lists and after step 320 and step 321 adds it to Ranked list of alternatives as the highest ranked alternative so far:
- step 323 Alan, is erased from provided copy of Weighted Preference Lists and step 324 will find it empty which will lead to process 326 where Alan is considered as the highest ranked alternative and process 300 ends with Ranked list of alternatives containing the intended list.
- FIG. 4 is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 400 by some embodiments of this invention to create a new List of Spoilers using a given set of Weighted Preference Lists and a provided Strong Alternative. Whenever ranking is needed in process 400, it uses the same ranking method used in search for Strong Alternative. Some of the embodiments of this invention use this process repeatedly in process 200 and therefore some of the alternatives in Weighted Preference Lists may have been signed out, before this process receives the given Weighted Preference Lists.
- a level-indicator is set to level 1.
- the level-indicator is a counter that starts at one, meaning that at first the alternatives will be tested one by one to check the effect of their removal on highest ranked alternative. And then in the next step it will change to two, which means in that iteration the alternatives will be tested two by two to check the effect of their removal on highest ranked alternative.
- step 405 the level-indicator is compared with the number of alternatives in given Weighted Preference Lists that are not signed. If the level-indicator is more than 'the number of alternatives in given Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed alternatives minus 2', the process is concluded.
- the process will conclude at the beginning since 2- 2 is 0 and the level-indicator is 1 that is greater than 0. This is desired because there can't be any spoilers between two alternatives. If the number of alternatives is more than 2, this process will not conclude at the beginning. For example, if the number of valid alternatives is 3, since 3-2 is 1 and the level-indicator is 1 that is not greater than 1, the process will continue to step 414.
- Some embodiments of this invention can also conclude this process in step 405 if at least one of, but not limited to, the following happens: the level-indicator is more than a predetermined level, a deadline has reached or a predetermined number of spoilers are found.
- a new valid combination of alternatives, in said given Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed alternatives is selected based on a strategy. This combination is a set of alternatives wherein the number of alternatives in the set is the level-indicator. The selected combination does not include Strong Alternative, or simple or compound spoilers in the List of Spoilers.
- the valid combinations with level-indicator equal to 1 will be the combinations of alternatives from set of ⁇ B,C ⁇ , which are B or C. If the alternatives in Weighted Preference Lists excluding signed alternatives are ⁇ A,B,C,D ⁇ , the valid combination with level-indicator equal to 1 will be three combinations of alternatives from set of ⁇ B,C,D ⁇ which are B or C or D and with level-indicator equal to 2, there can be three valid combinations of alternatives from set of ⁇ B,C,D ⁇ which are BC, BD or CD.
- a spoiler in the List of Spoilers can be an alternative or a combination of alternatives.
- the members of a compound spoiler are tested in combination with other alternatives but the compound itself isn't tested in combination with others. For example, if there are 6 alternatives ⁇ A,B,C,D,E,F ⁇ , and (A) is found as Strong Alternative and List of Spoilers is ⁇ D, BC ⁇ which have already been detected in process 400, then when the level-indicator is 3, the combination (DBC) is not selected to be tested because D is already a spoiler and the combination (BCE) is not selected to be tested because the compound spoiler BC is already known as a spoiler. However, the combination (BEF) is a valid combination for being selected to be tested.
- Some embodiments choose some optimization strategies to maximize the speed of decision making by selecting the combinations from a certain subset of alternatives, or by selecting the alternatives with certain order or according to some algorithms.
- step 424 the highest ranked alternative is found using a copy of said supplied Weighted Preference Lists without the alternatives in selected combination.
- the method used for creating this ranked list must be identical to what has been used for finding the Strong Alternative.
- step 430 the highest ranked alternative and Strong Alternative are compared to see if they are different. If they are found different, in step 435, the combination that was selected is considered to be a spoiler and is added to the anticipated List of Spoilers (list 440).
- step 445 it is verified if all the valid combinations at the current value of level-indicator have been selected and tested for spoiler effect.
- the valid combination is a set of alternatives wherein the number of alternatives in the combination is the level-indicator and the selected combination does not have the alternatives that are signed, the Strong Alternative or the members of List of Spoilers. If all of the valid combinations at this level-indicator are not tested yet, step 414 and its next steps are repeated.
- step 460 If all of the valid combinations at this level-indicator are tested, in step 460, the level-indicator is incremented by one and step the 405 and its next steps are repeated.
- EXAMPLE 7 An embodiment of this invention used voting systems in national elections
- Bill will be elected.
- step 200 in process 100, step 200 will be performed.
- step 300 some embodiments use flowchart in FIG. 3b that uses plurality repeatedly to find the highest ranked alternative:
- Step 320 a ranked list is not required.
- step 323 George is erased from provided Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 400 of process 200 some embodiments of this invention use process 400 as explained in FIG. 4 to create a List of Spoilers.
- step 401 the level-indicator is set to 1.
- step 405 it is found that the number of alternatives minus 2 is more than, the level-indicator.
- step 414 from the one member combinations of the three candidates only Ross or George are valid because the Strong Alternative is not considered a valid spoiler. For the first iteration Ross is selected.
- step 424 performing the same method explained in FIG. 3b, using a copy of given Weighted Preference Lists without signed alternatives and selected combination, the highest ranked alternative is found.
- step 430 Highest ranked alternative (George) and Strong Alternative: (Bill) are compared and it is found that the result is not the same. Therefore, Ross is added to the List of Spoilers.
- step 445 it is found that a valid combination in this level that is George is not tested for spoiler effect yet.
- George is selected and in step 424, performing the same method explained in FIG. 3b, using a copy of given Weighted Preference Lists without George, the highest ranked alternative is found.
- step 430 the highest ranked alternative (Bill) and Strong Alternative: (Bill) are compared and it is found that they are consistent.
- step 445 it is verified that all valid combinations are checked and in step 460, level-indicator is incremented to 2.
- step 405 it is found that level-indicator (2) is not greater than 'number of not signed alternatives minus two' (4-2), therefore the process 400 is concluded.
- step 208 it is realized that a spoiler is in List of Spoilers, and in step 214, Ross who is in List of Spoilers is signed in Weighted Preference Lists.
- Step 300 finds the highest ranked alternative using Weighted Preference Lists excluding Ross and will lead to:
- Step 400 finds no spoiler between two alternatives and step 208 decides that the next step is 206.
- step 206 all the signs added in this process are removed.
- step 110 in FIG. 1 George is selected as the Independent Collective Choice.
- FIG. 5a is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 200 by some embodiments of this invention to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers.
- This embodiment uses a replica of Weighted Preference Lists and removes detected spoilers from the replica instead of signing the spoilers in the given Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 201 a replica of the given Weighted Preference Lists is created.
- step 300 a Strong Alternative is found using the given set of Weighted Preference Lists by one of many possible vote aggregation methods.
- some embodiments of the invention apply one or more preferential voting methods selected from the group consisting of but not limited to: a Ranked Pairs method, an Instant-Runoff Voting, a Schulze method, a Kemeny- Young method, a Condorcet scoring method, a Borda Count method.
- Other embodiments apply a collective choice procedure repeatedly to find a preferred collective choice as shown in FIG. 3a or FIG. 3b using a copy of said provided Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 600 the Weighted Preference Lists are analyzed and a List of Spoilers (list 204) is created.
- list 204 a List of Spoilers.
- Some embodiments of this invention create an ordered List of Spoilers as part of process 600 and some just create a set of spoilers.
- the spoilers can be simple (made of one alternative) or compound (made of a plurality of alternatives).
- Step 208 if no spoiler is detected, the replica is not needed anymore and the process is concluded. If any spoiler is detected and List of Spoilers is not empty, in step 230, the spoiler combinations in the List of Spoilers are analyzed and the least favored among them is found and removed from the replica of Weighted Preference Lists. In some embodiments, if alternatives in a compound spoiler are the least favored alternatives, all members of the compound are removed. Some embodiments remove all the members of the compound spoiler if one of the members of a compound spoiler is the least preferred alternative. Some embodiments remove a plurality or all of spoilers in said sorted List of Spoilers, out of said replica of Weighted Preference Lists.
- steps 300, 600 and the rest of steps in process 200 in FIG. 5a are applied to Weighted Preference Lists.
- FIG. 5b is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 200 by some embodiments of this invention to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers by recursively using steps in process 100 when deciding which spoilers should be removed.
- This embodiment uses a replica of Weighted Preference Lists and removes detected spoilers from the replica.
- This embodiment also uses the process 100 recursively which will ensure that the existence of irrelevant alternatives among spoilers when finding the least favored spoiler will not influence the outcomes.
- Steps 201, 300, 600, and 208 are identical to FIG. 5a described before.
- step 232 process 100 is recursively employed to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List using a copy of said replica of Weighted Preference Lists including only the alternatives in said List of Spoilers. If the number of spoilers detected in List of Spoilers is greater than two then some of them may act as spoilers for others. The outcome of step 232 is shown as list 231.
- step 233 at least one of the lowest ranked spoilers in Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers is removed from Weighted Preference Lists.
- alternatives in a compound spoiler are the least favored alternatives, all members of the compound are signed out.
- Some embodiments sign all the members of the compound spoiler if one of the members of a compound spoiler is the lowest ranked alternative.
- Some embodiments sign a plurality or all of spoilers in said Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers, out of said Weighted Preference Lists.
- steps 300 and other steps in process 200 are repeated until no spoilers are detected.
- FIG. 5c is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 200 by some embodiments of this invention to find a preferred collective choice using given Weighted Preference Lists while restricting the impact of spoilers by making a ranked List of Spoilers when deciding which spoilers should be removed.
- This embodiment uses a replica of Weighted Preference Lists and removes detected spoilers from the replica. It uses a collective choice procedure that creates a ranked list of spoilers like Borda Count, or uses process 300, as explained in FIG. 3a and FIG. 3b.
- Steps 201, 300, 600, and 208 are identical to FIG. 5a described before.
- step 235 a ranked list of alternatives is made, some embodiments of the invention generate a sequence of alternatives using said replica of Weighted Preference Lists including only alternatives in the list of spoilers by applying one or more preferential voting methods selected from the group consisting of but not limited to: a Ranked Pairs method, an Instant-Runoff Voting, a Schulze method, a Kemeny- Young method, a Condorcet scoring method, a Borda Count method.
- Other embodiments apply a collective choice procedure repeatedly to make a ranked list of alternatives by applying process 300 shown in FIG. 3a or FIG. 3b using given Weighted Preference Lists including only alternatives in the list of spoilers.
- the result of step 235 is a ranked List of Spoilers shown as list 234.
- step 236 at least one of the lowest ranked spoilers in Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers is removed from Weighted Preference Lists.
- alternatives in a compound spoiler are the least favored alternatives, all members of the compound are signed out.
- Some embodiments sign all the members of the compound spoiler if one of the members of a compound spoiler is the lowest ranked alternative.
- Some embodiments sign a plurality or all of spoilers in said Independent Collective Choice Ordered List of Spoilers, out of said Weighted Preference Lists.
- steps 300 and other steps in process 200 are repeated until no spoilers are detected.
- FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 600 by some embodiments of this invention to create a new List of Spoilers using a supplied set of Weighted Preference Lists and a Strong Alternative. Whenever ranking is needed in process 600, it uses the same ranking method used for the creation of Strong Alternative.
- a level-indicator is set to level 1.
- the level-indicator is a counter that starts at 1 meaning that the alternatives are tested one by one to check the effect of their removal on the highest ranked alternative found. And then in next round it changes to 2, which means, in that iteration the alternatives will be tested two by two to check the effect of their removal.
- step 609 the level-indicator is compared with the number of alternatives in given Weighted Preference Lists that are not in List of Spoilers. If the level-indicator is more than the number of alternatives in supplied Weighted Preference Lists excluding those that are in spoilers list minus 2, the process is concluded.
- Some embodiments of this invention also conclude the creation of said List of Spoilers in step 609 if at least one of, but not limited to, the following happens: the level-indicator is more than a predetermined level, a deadline has reached or a predetermined number of spoilers are found.
- a new combination of alternatives, in supplied Weighted Preference Lists is selected based on a strategy.
- This combination is a set of alternatives wherein the number of alternatives in the set is the level-indicator.
- the selected combination does not include Strong Alternative or simple or compound spoilers in the List of Spoilers.
- Some embodiments choose some optimization strategies to maximize the speed of decision making by choosing from a certain subset of alternatives when selecting the combinations or by selecting the alternatives with certain order or according to some algorithms.
- step 626 the highest ranked alternative is found using a copy of said supplied Weighted Preference Lists without the alternatives in selected combination.
- the method used for creating this ranked list must be identical to what has been used for finding the Strong Alternative.
- step 630 the highest ranked alternative and Strong Alternative are compared to see if they are different. If they are found different, in step 635, the combination that was selected is considered to be a spoiler and is added to the anticipated List of Spoilers (list 640).
- step 645 it is verified if all the valid combinations at the current value of level-indicator have been selected and tested for spoiler effect.
- the valid combination is a set of alternatives in the supplied Weighted Preference Lists wherein the number of alternatives in the combination is the level-indicator and the selected combination does not have the Strong Alternative or the members of List of Spoilers.
- step 651 the level-indicator is Incremented by one and the step 609 and its next steps are repeated.
- EXAMPLE 8 An embodiment of this invention ina system used in the election of the most popular artist in televised shows.
- This example shows how the flowchart in FIG. 5a is used by some embodiments of this invention in the election of the most popular artist in televised shows.
- step 200 process 200, as explained in FIG. 5a, finds a preferred collective choice.
- step 201 of process 200 a replica of Weighted Preference Lists is created and in step 300 a Strong Alternative is found.
- step 305 more than one alternative in found in it.
- step 312 to 316 using only the first preferences, Ben is selected and in step 318 is removed from the operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists:
- step 305 to 316 using only the first preferences, Cam is selected and in step 318 is removed from the operational copy of Weighted Preference Lists:
- step 305 to 316 using only the first preferences, Daniel is selected and in step 318 is removed from the Operational copy of WPL Ben, Cam and Daniel removed:
- step 305 Audrey is found the only remaining alternative.
- 320 is decided that a ranked list is created and in step 321 Audrey is added to Ranked list of alternatives.
- step 323 Audrey is erased from Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 324 lists are found non empty and step 302 is repeated creating a new Operational copy Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 326 Ben is selected as the highest ranked alternative and process 300 ends. And step 300 in process 200, finds a Strong Alternative.
- step 600 process 600, creates a list of the spoilers the detail of this process is described in the next example.
- List of Spoilers ⁇ Cam&Daniel ⁇
- the List of Spoilers contains a compound spoiler.
- step 208 it is found that some spoilers are detected.
- step 230 the members the compound spoiler, are removed from the replica of Weighted Preference Lists.
- step 300 a Strong Alternative using replica is found:
- step 600 and 208 No spoilers are found and the process 200 in concluded with Audrey as the highest ranked alternative and in step 110, 130, and 150 of process 100 Audrey is added to the Independent Collective Choice Ordered List 140.
- step 160 Audrey is removed from given Weighted Preference Lists and in step 170 it is decided that in step 200 the next Independent Collective Choice should be found.
- EXAMPLE 9 An embodiment of process 600 in FIG. 6 used in a system for the election of the most popular artist in televised shows.
- This example shows how the flowchart in FIG. 5a can apply process 600 as explained in FIG. 6, in the election of the most popular artist in televised shows.
- step 601 the level-indicator is set to 1 and in step 609, 615 is selected as the next step,
- step 615 from the one member combinations of the three candidates only Audrey, Daniel and Cam are valid because the Strong Alternative (Ben) is not considered a valid spoiler. For the first iteration, Daniel is selected.
- step 626 the highest ranked alternative in supplied Weighted Preference Lists excluding Daniel using the same method explained in FIG. 3b will be found.
- the highest ranked alternative (Ben)
- the highest ranked alternative (Ben) and Strong Alternative: (Ben) are compared and it is found that the highest ranked is the same as Strong Alternative.
- step 645 it is found that a valid combination in this level that is Audrey and is not tested for spoiler effect yet.
- step 615 from the one member combinations of the three candidates only Audrey and Cam are valid. For the next iteration Audrey is selected.
- step 626 the highest ranked alternative in supplied Weighted Preference Lists excluding Audrey using the same method explained in FIG. 3b will be found.
- step 630 the highest ranked alternative (Ben) and Strong Alternative: (Ben) are compared and it is found that they are the same.
- step 645 it is found that a valid combination in this level that is Cam is not tested for spoiler effect yet.
- step 615 from the one member combinations of the three candidates only Cam is valid. For the next iteration Cam is selected.
- step 626 the highest ranked alternative in supplied Weighted Preference Lists excluding Cam using the same method explained in FIG. 3b will be is found.
- step 630 the highest ranked alternative (Ben) and Strong Alternative: (Ben) are compared and it is found that they are the same.
- step 645 it is found that all valid combinations in this level have been tested.
- step 651 the level-indicator is incremented to 2.
- step 609 it is found that the level-indicator (2) is not bigger than (4-2).
- step 615 from the 2 member combinations of the three candidates only Audrey&Cam, Audrey &Daniel and Cam&Daniel are valid because the Strong Alternative is not considered a valid spoiler. For the next iteration Cam&Daniel is selected.
- step 626 the highest ranked alternative in supplied Weighted Preference Lists excluding Cam&Daniel using the same method explained in FIG. 3b will be found.
- step 630 the highest ranked alternative (Audrey) and Strong Alternative: (Ben) are compared and it is found that the highest ranked Alternative is not the same as Strong Alternative.
- step 635 Cam and Daniel are added to the List of Spoilers as a compound spoiler.
- step 645 it is found that not all valid combinations in this level have been tested. Then steps 615 to 645 are repeated two more times and it is found that the only spoilers are Cam and Daniel.
- step 651 the level-indicator is incremented to 3 and in step 609, It is found that the level-indicator (3) is not be bigger than (4-2) and process 600 is concluded with:
- FIG. 7 is a flowchart showing the steps used in process 10 by some embodiments of this invention to select a collective choice set from alternatives in a set of Weighted Preference Lists with proportional representation.
- step 20 a temporary copy of Weighted Preference Lists is created;
- step 25 a 'top choice set' consisting of the 'top choice' of each list in said temporary Weighted Preference Lists is formed.
- step 30 a significance number is assigned to each alternative in said top choice set by adding the weight number of those temporary Weighted Preference Lists that have said alternative at the top. Some embodiments use other ways to combine the weight of each list and assign significance.
- step 40 the highest significance number and a predetermined quota are compared.
- the quota is determined in relation with a predetermined number of alternatives that must be selected. Different embodiments of the invention can choose different strategies for selecting the quota for example, Droop quota or Hare quota. Some embodiments can choose a quota based on the following rule:
- the quota would be greater than 25; for example, 26.
- step 42 If said highest significance number found in step 40 is less than a predetermined quota, in step 42, if sum of the weights of alternatives remaining in temporary Weighted Preference Lists is less than said quota, the process 10 in concluded and if this sum is greater than quota then step 43 is performed.
- step 43 and 44 When step 43 and 44 should be performed, none of the alternatives has a significance level above the quota and therefore at least one of the alternatives must be selected to be removed from the lists. In an iterative loop of steps 43, 44,25,30,40 and 42, the lowest ranked alternative is determined and removed until at least one of the remaining alternatives goes above the pre determined quota.
- process 100 can be employed to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List from a copy of said temporary Weighted Preference Lists.
- Embodiments of 'Collaborative Plurality Method' like process 100, have this advantage that they minimize the impact of introduction of the irrelevant alternatives. Some embodiments just use a collective choice procedure or step 300 to make a ranked list of alternatives.
- Some embodiments of this invention find the alternatives that should be removed by limiting the search to Weighted Preference Lists including only the alternatives in said 'top choice set' and employing process 100 to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List from a copy of said temporary Weighted Preference Lists. Some embodiments choose to just use either a collective choice procedure, or apply a process 300 to make a ranked list of alternatives in Weighted Preference Lists including only the alternatives in said 'top choice set'. In step 44, at least one of the lowest ranked alternatives is removed from said temporary Weighted Preference Lists and then steps 25 and its next steps are repeated.
- step 40 if said highest significance number is greater than or equal to a predetermined quota, in step 50, the number of alternatives in top choice set that have that highest significance is verified. If there are more than one alternative with that same highest significance step 52 is performed and if there is only one alternative in top choice set that has that significance, step 55 is performed. Step 52 only happens when some alternatives in top choice set have exactly the same significance and tie with that highest significance above quota.
- step 55 If there is only one alternative in top choice set that has that highest significance greater than or equal to a predetermined quota, in step 55, the chosen alternative which is the only alternative with that significance is added to the Proportional Collective Choice Set shown as list 60.
- step 52 one or more alternatives among the alternatives with significance greater than or equal to quota are chosen and, in step 55, the chosen alternative or alternatives are added to the Proportional Collective Choice Set shown as list 60.
- Different embodiments of this invention can choose different strategies for choosing among the alternatives that have tied with the highest significance number greater than or equal to a predetermined quota. Some can choose a plurality of said alternatives and some choose all of them, some employ process 100 to select an Independent Collective Choice using a copy of said temporary Weighted Preference Lists of only 'the alternatives with significance number greater than or equal to said predetermined quota', and some employ process 100 to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List using said temporary Weighted Preference Lists of only 'the alternatives with significance number greater than or equal to said predetermined quota' and then choose the lowest ranked alternative in said Independent Collective Choice Ordered List;
- step 65 some embodiments stop the process when some conditions apply. If a predetermined number of alternatives are added to the Proportional Collective Choice Set, the sum of the weights of remaining alternatives in Temporary copy of Weighted Preference Lists is less than said quota, a deadline has reached, a decision is made, a task is accomplished or other conditions are applicable, the process is concluded and the list 60 contains the Proportional Collective Choice Set.
- step 70 the weights of lists in Weighted Preference Lists are reduced to reflect the selection of chosen alternatives.
- the lists that had the chosen alternative at the top at step 25, will contribute from their weight to its selection.
- the sum of the contributions from different lists must be equal the predetermined quota.
- This step is easy to understand because it is similar to spending power to get something or spending money to buy goods.
- the embodiments of the invention that use 'collaborative Plurality method' step 43 with this contribution approach can be called 'Collaborative Proportional Contribution Methods'.
- Different embodiments of this invention can choose different strategies for reducing the weights of lists in Weighted Preference Lists. Among all possible strategies, some proportionally subtract said quota from the weight currently assigned to Weighted Preference Lists contributing to the significance of each one of said chosen alternatives.
- step 75 chosen alternatives are removed from Weighted Preference Lists and then step 20 is repeated.
- step 20 a new temporary copy of the Weighted Preference Lists is created. This means that all the not chosen alternatives are considered in the next round of selection for the next alternative. This is advantageous because the selection of each next alternative is treated as a new selection with adjusted weights that uses all of the information collected from evaluators. Then steps 25 and its next steps are repeated with the remaining alternatives in said set of Weighted Preference Lists to choose the next members of Proportional Collective Choice Set.
- EXAMPLE 10 An embodiment of this invention used in Group Decision Support Systems with proportional representation in a space mission.
- the group with the first preference have clear majority and if the decision was made based on majority (without proportionality), space walk, install equipment and astronomic observation would be performed. If the decision is made based on some collective choice system with proportional representation other decisions can be made.
- STV Single Transferable Vote
- a threshold based on the number alternatives being selected must be chosen. Different embodiments of this invention work with different thresholds; for this example, let's assume that a threshold according to droop quota is chosen to make guarantee that exactly three alternatives can be selected.
- process 10 starts with step 20.
- step 20 a temporary copy of Weighted Preference Lists is created:
- step 25 the top choice of each Temporary Weighted Preference List is selected and a Top Choice Set is formed:
- Top choice set ⁇ space walk, repair, report ⁇
- a significance number is assigned to each alternative in Top Choice Set.
- step 40 it is verified that the highest significance number '67' is greater than the predetermined quota '26' and in step 50, it is found that there is only one alternative (space walk) with that significance.
- step 55 space walk is added to Proportional Collective Choice Set and one of the astronauts can be assigned to the task.
- step 65 it is found that not all of predetermined number of alternatives is selected.
- step 70 different embodiments choose different ways to calculate the contribution of each list to the selection of chosen alternative and to reduce the weight of those lists.
- the quota will be proportionally subtracted from the weights of first and second lists:
- step 75 space walk is removed from the Weighted Preference Lists resulting:
- step 20 a temporary copy of Weighted Preference Lists is created:
- step 25 the top choice of each Temporary Weighted Preference List is selected and a top Choice Set is formed:
- step 30 by adding the weight number of those lists, a significance number is assigned to each alternative in Top Choice Set.
- step 40 it is understood that the highest significance number '41' is greater than the quota '26' and in step 50 it is found that there is only one alternative with that significance.
- step 55 'install equipment' is added to Proportional Collective Choice Set and one of the astronauts can be assigned to the task.
- step 65 it is understood that not all of predetermined number of alternatives are selected.
- step 70 in this embodiment the quota will be proportionally subtracted from the weights of contributing Weighted Preference Lists:
- step 75 install equipment is removed from the Weighted Preference Lists resulting:
- step 20 a temporary copy of Weighted Preference Lists is created:
- step 25 the top choice of each Temporary Weighted Preference List is selected and a top Choice Set is formed:
- step 30 by adding the weight number of those lists, a significance number is assigned to each alternative in Top Choice Set.
- step 40 it is understood that the highest significance number is NOT greater than 26. And in step 42, it is found that the sum of the weights is 48 and is greater than quota.
- step 43 process 100 is employed to produce an Independent Collective Choice Ordered List using a copy of Weighted Preference Listing including the alternatives in said temporary copy of WPL.
- Process 100 employing Process 200, as in FIG. 2a, using process 300 explained in FIG. 3b finds that that the Strong Alternative is report.
- step 44 'experiment' that is the lowest ranked alternative in Independent Collective Choice Ordered List is removed from temporary copy of Weighted Preference Lists: Temporary copy of WPL:
- steps 25,30, 40 and 42 will lead to:
- step 44 'astronomic observation' the lowest ranked alternative in Independent Collective Choice Ordered List is removed from temporary copy of Weighted Preference Lists:
- step 25 the top choice of each Temporary Weighted Preference List is selected and a top Choice Set is formed:
- step 30 by adding the weight number of those lists, a significance number is assigned to each alternative in Top Choice Set.
- step 40 it is understood that the highest significance number is greater than 26.
- step 55 repair is added to Proportional Collective Choice Set and one of the astronauts can be assigned to this task.
- Proportional Collective Choice Set ⁇ space walk, install equipment, repair ⁇
- step 65 it verified that all three predetermined number of alternatives are selected and the process is concluded.
- EXAMPLE 11 An embodiment of this invention used in automated control systems that make decisions based on the measurements of sensors.
- microprocessor based control units are monitoring a process.
- the central control system receives the suggested feedback action from the microprocessor based control units and aggregates the results as Weighted Preference Lists and must choose one action to be performed as a result of limitations of the single robotic hand it is equipped with. However, when the measurements are processed by microprocessor based control units they decide that they are indifferent to some of the alternative actions:
- microprocessor based control units are allowed to suggest multiple action as the same priority actions. In the example above, 5 units have suggested that Actions B and D have the highest priority and should be done at the same time. Also microprocessor based control units can be silent about some alternatives as the first group has not rated action A.
- a similar situation may arise in elections if people may be allowed to express indifference comparing two or more candidates while ranking them against the rest of candidates; for example, in voting for the members of their party when they want to give the same priority to all the candidates from their party.
- step 200 of process 100 process 200 is employed.
- step 201 of process 200 in FIG. 5a a replica of Weighted Preference Lists is created.
- step 300 using process 300 in FIG3b using plurality a Strong Alternative is found.
- step 312 the first choices are selected.
- step 314 an aggregated weight is assigned to each first choice.
- step 316 one of the alternatives should be selected but B and D are in tie situation.
- the process 200 is recursively employed to choose between tied alternatives except if they are found in a symmetric tie which can be broken with using a different collective choice rule or random selection. In this situation, considering only B and D in the Weighted Preference Lists, B is preferred over D. This means that the preferences of other evaluators influence the break of the tie.
- step 400 it will be found that C is a spoiler since the ranked list of alternatives without it, made by same process 300 has a different highest ranked alternative than the Strong Alternative.
- step 435 C is added to List of Spoilers:
- step 230 C is removed Weighted Preference Lists, and in step 300 and 400 a new Strong Alternative without spoilers will be found:
- Example 12 An embodiment of this invention in systems with at least one processor and with different types of memory
- FIG. 8 is a block diagram of an example system that can be used in some embodiments of the invention.
- System 800 is not limited to being a typical computer but it may be any type of computing device, including, for example, a server, portable computing device, or a personal digital assistant, a cell phone, a router , a control system or any other device that is equipped with electronics means that in one or more steps of its operation a decision is made .
- System 800 and variants thereon may be employed in the invention to implement or perform the methods and techniques described in this document.
- System 800 comprises one or more buses 801 configured to communicate information including addresses, instructions and data.
- the system also comprises one or more processors 802 configured to process information and data according to instructions and other data.
- the processor may be any means of executing the instructions such as a central processing unit, a microprocessor, an embedded processor, or a special purpose processor, for example.
- the system may optionally include one or more volatile memory units 804 or other devices or circuits configured to store information, data and instructions.
- Volatile memory 804 may be random access memory (RAM), static RAM, or dynamic RAM as examples.
- Volatile memory 804 is coupled to bus 801 such that it can communicate with other parts of the system.
- the system 800 may optionally include one or more non-volatile memory units 806 or other devices or circuits configured to store static information and instructions.
- Non- Volatile memory 806 may include among other options, such as read only memory (ROM), programmable ROM, flash memory, electrically programmable ROM (EPROM), or erasable electrically programmable ROM (EEPROM).
- Non- Volatile memory 806 is coupled with bus 801 such that it can communicate with other parts of the system.
- the system may optionally include communication interface 808, which may be one or more devices or circuits configured to interface with another electronic device via network or communication link 830.
- Communication interface 808 is coupled to bus 801 and may be based on wired communication technology, wireless communication technology, or both.
- the system may get the information about the preference lists of sensors 840 or evaluators 845 through communication interface and may process them directly, or after storing them in volatile memory , Non-volatile memory or Data storage.
- Communication interface 808 may be a serial communication port, a Universal Serial Bus (USB), an Ethernet adapter, an IEEE 1394 bus interface, a parallel port, a small computer system interface (SCSI) bus interface, an infrared (IR) communication port, a Bluetooth wireless communication adapter, a broadband connection, or a connection to the Internet, among other options.
- the system may optionally include user interface 812, that is, one or more alphanumeric input devices coupled to bus 801 such as keyboard configured to communicate information and command selections from a user.
- the user interface may also include one or more cursor control, indicating, selecting or pointing devices configured to communicate analog, quantitative or selection user input information and command selections to processor 802.
- the mouse element may be a mouse, a track ball, a track pad, an optical tracking device, a joystick, a game controller, a touch screen, or a glove, for example.
- the user interface may optionally include display, that is, one or more devices or circuits configured to display pictures, video, text or graphics.
- Display 812 may be, among other options, a cathode ray tube (CRT), a flat panel display, a liquid crystal display (LCD), a field emission display (FED), or a heads up display in a vehicle.
- CTR cathode ray tube
- LCD liquid crystal display
- FED field emission display
- the user interface may optionally include one or more devices configured to sense, process, generate and recognize voice commands, responses or other words. Voice recognition may replace or augment the functions of keyboard , mouse, or both. Such devices may include, among others, microphone or speaker, which may also be used for audio capture and reproduction of, for example, speech, singing and music.
- the computer system may optionally include data storage devices such as disk, that is, one or more devices or circuits configured to store sizable amounts of information, data or instructions.
- Data storage for example, may be a mass storage device, a magnetic disk, an optical disk, a compact disk (CD), a writeable CD, a digital versatile disk (DVD), a hard disk, a floppy disk, a flash memory or a memory stick. Data storage is coupled with bus 801 such that can communicate with other parts of the system.
- the invention as described herein enables computing of an overall or aggregate decision to find a preferred alternative, using weighted preference lists while restricting the impact of irrelevant alternatives or spoilers, this preferred alternative is called an Independent Collective Choice.
- this preferred alternative is called an Independent Collective Choice.
- the selected preferred alternative is added to an ordered list of Independent Collective Choices and removed from weighted lists, and finding, adding, and removing are repeated.
- the lowest ranked alternative in Independent Collective Choice Ordered List is removed repeatedly as needed to find alternatives in a top choice set with predetermined quota. This process is repeated with adjusted weights until a number of alternatives are selected.
- Some embodiments apply collective choice procedures repeatedly to select the highest ranked alternative, compare the outcomes before and after the removal of alternative combinations, and use the selection of Independent Collective Choice recursively and iteratively when selecting highest or lowest ranked alternatives.
- the embodiments of this invention can be, among many others, in means, apparatuses, and software programs or embedded programs in hardware devices where a decision on a number of alternatives based on a plurality of inputs are made.
- any of the methods explained can be implemented in mobile devices to provide groups of people portable and reliable group decision making capabilities, or routers can use the methods of this invention to choose the best route for packets based on the preferences they collect from other network devices, or some embodiments can use the methods of this invention in aggregation used in weather forecasting based on measurements and preferences by sensors or experts in more consistent way.
- the embodiments can include implementation of methods of this invention in any vote collecting, manual or automatic tallying, counting or electoral and voting systems like different types of Mixed Member Proportional representation voting systems or Party-list proportional representation systems and Single Transferable Vote.
- the group decisions and elections can be negatively affected by the possibility of vote splitting and spoiler effect, and may result in undesired outcomes.
- the embodiments of this invention avert the impact of introduction of the irrelevant alternatives that have no chance to be elected and enable the evaluators to express their sincere preferences and reduce the interest in tactical voting; at the same time, they lead to more reliable group decisions.
- the embodiments of this invention in control systems and machine decision making result in better and more stable decisions because they select the alternatives after the impact of spoilers are restricted. They process the preferences expressed by evaluators and avert the impact of spoilers during a decision making process.
- determining a collective choice is treated as information processing and data mining task.
- the embodiments of this invention solve many problems observed in single winner election systems and embodiments for proportional representation, as described in some of the examples in description section, solve the problems many multi member electoral systems have been facing.
- the embodiments of this invention search and find the spoilers to cancel the dependencies on irrelevant alternatives.
- the embodiments of this invention when used in elections are not only averting the impact of irrelevant alternatives on the collective choice but also can prevent situations when the sincere expressions of preferences by the evaluators become self defeating.
- the groups of people who prefer an alternative will have consent for temporary exclusion of their higher preference in favor of their next choices in each round of decision-making, if their higher preference can not be elected based on the collective choice procedure applied.
Abstract
Description
Claims
Priority Applications (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
GB1008534A GB2468064A (en) | 2007-11-23 | 2008-11-13 | Decision making independent of irrelevant alternatives |
CA2705212A CA2705212A1 (en) | 2007-11-23 | 2008-11-13 | Decision making independent of irrelevant alternatives |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US11/944,585 US20090138422A1 (en) | 2007-11-23 | 2007-11-23 | Methods for making collective decisions independent of irrelevant alternatives |
US11/944,585 | 2007-11-23 |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO2009065211A1 true WO2009065211A1 (en) | 2009-05-28 |
Family
ID=40667075
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/CA2008/001942 WO2009065211A1 (en) | 2007-11-23 | 2008-11-13 | Decision making independent of irrelevant alternatives |
Country Status (4)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US20090138422A1 (en) |
CA (1) | CA2705212A1 (en) |
GB (1) | GB2468064A (en) |
WO (1) | WO2009065211A1 (en) |
Cited By (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20120215593A1 (en) * | 2011-02-22 | 2012-08-23 | Community-Based Innovation Systems Gmbh | Computer Implemented Method for Scoring Change Proposals |
US10366361B1 (en) * | 2018-05-10 | 2019-07-30 | Definitive Business Solutions, Inc. | Systems and methods for performing multi-tier data transfer in a group assessment processing environment |
US11398898B2 (en) | 2016-07-22 | 2022-07-26 | Tagsys | Secure RFID communication method |
WO2023135623A1 (en) * | 2022-01-11 | 2023-07-20 | 富士通株式会社 | Evaluation method, information processing device, and evaluation program |
Families Citing this family (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
WO2013033229A1 (en) * | 2011-08-29 | 2013-03-07 | Massachusetts Institute Of Technology | System and method for providing personalized recommendations |
US10789539B2 (en) * | 2015-12-31 | 2020-09-29 | Nuance Communications, Inc. | Probabilistic ranking for natural language understanding |
US10268977B1 (en) * | 2018-05-10 | 2019-04-23 | Definitive Business Solutions, Inc. | Systems and methods for graphical user interface (GUI) based assessment processing |
Citations (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20030191726A1 (en) * | 2002-04-05 | 2003-10-09 | Kirshenbaum Evan R. | Machine decisions based on preferential voting techniques |
US20050261953A1 (en) * | 2004-05-24 | 2005-11-24 | Malek Kamal M | Determining design preferences of a group |
US20060241950A1 (en) * | 2003-06-13 | 2006-10-26 | Paul Hansen | Decision support system and method |
US7240039B2 (en) * | 2003-10-29 | 2007-07-03 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | System and method for combining valuations of multiple evaluators |
Family Cites Families (7)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US6915269B1 (en) * | 1999-12-23 | 2005-07-05 | Decisionsorter Llc | System and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making |
US6714929B1 (en) * | 2001-04-13 | 2004-03-30 | Auguri Corporation | Weighted preference data search system and method |
US7836057B1 (en) * | 2001-09-24 | 2010-11-16 | Auguri Corporation | Weighted preference inference system and method |
US7172118B2 (en) * | 2003-09-29 | 2007-02-06 | The Trustees Of Stevens Institute Of Technology | System and method for overcoming decision making and communications errors to produce expedited and accurate group choices |
US20050210025A1 (en) * | 2004-03-17 | 2005-09-22 | Dalton Michael E | System and method for predicting the ranking of items |
US7258275B1 (en) * | 2004-05-25 | 2007-08-21 | Steven David Reddy | Televised competition viewer voting modified scoring methodology |
US20080208836A1 (en) * | 2007-02-23 | 2008-08-28 | Yahoo! Inc. | Regression framework for learning ranking functions using relative preferences |
-
2007
- 2007-11-23 US US11/944,585 patent/US20090138422A1/en not_active Abandoned
-
2008
- 2008-11-13 GB GB1008534A patent/GB2468064A/en not_active Withdrawn
- 2008-11-13 CA CA2705212A patent/CA2705212A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2008-11-13 WO PCT/CA2008/001942 patent/WO2009065211A1/en active Application Filing
Patent Citations (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20030191726A1 (en) * | 2002-04-05 | 2003-10-09 | Kirshenbaum Evan R. | Machine decisions based on preferential voting techniques |
US20060241950A1 (en) * | 2003-06-13 | 2006-10-26 | Paul Hansen | Decision support system and method |
US7240039B2 (en) * | 2003-10-29 | 2007-07-03 | Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. | System and method for combining valuations of multiple evaluators |
US20050261953A1 (en) * | 2004-05-24 | 2005-11-24 | Malek Kamal M | Determining design preferences of a group |
Non-Patent Citations (2)
Title |
---|
"Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-03), 2003, Acapulco, Mexico", 2003, article CONITZER, V. ET AL.: "Universal Voting Protocol Tweaks to Make Manipulation Hard" * |
RUSSELL, N. F.: "Complexity Control ofBorda Count Elections", THESIS, DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE, ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, 9 July 2007 (2007-07-09), Retrieved from the Internet <URL:https://ritdml.rit.edu/dspace/bitstream/1850/4923/1/NRussel1Thesis07-2007.pdf> [retrieved on 20090209] * |
Cited By (5)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20120215593A1 (en) * | 2011-02-22 | 2012-08-23 | Community-Based Innovation Systems Gmbh | Computer Implemented Method for Scoring Change Proposals |
US8275654B2 (en) * | 2011-02-22 | 2012-09-25 | Community-Based Innovation Systems Gmbh | Computer implemented method for scoring change proposals |
US11398898B2 (en) | 2016-07-22 | 2022-07-26 | Tagsys | Secure RFID communication method |
US10366361B1 (en) * | 2018-05-10 | 2019-07-30 | Definitive Business Solutions, Inc. | Systems and methods for performing multi-tier data transfer in a group assessment processing environment |
WO2023135623A1 (en) * | 2022-01-11 | 2023-07-20 | 富士通株式会社 | Evaluation method, information processing device, and evaluation program |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US20090138422A1 (en) | 2009-05-28 |
CA2705212A1 (en) | 2009-05-28 |
GB2468064A (en) | 2010-08-25 |
GB201008534D0 (en) | 2010-07-07 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
Overgoor et al. | Letting the computers take over: Using AI to solve marketing problems | |
Konstan et al. | Recommender systems: from algorithms to user experience | |
US8775354B2 (en) | Evaluating an item based on user reputation information | |
Kenett et al. | The real work of data science: turning data into information, better decisions, and stronger organizations | |
WO2009065211A1 (en) | Decision making independent of irrelevant alternatives | |
WO2011133551A2 (en) | Reducing the dissimilarity between a first multivariate data set and a second multivariate data set | |
Chaoji et al. | Machine learning in the real world | |
US11580099B2 (en) | Context-aware query suggestions | |
Hosio et al. | Leveraging wisdom of the crowd for decision support | |
Baharun et al. | Auto modelling for machine learning: a comparison implementation between rapid miner and python | |
Melnikov | Multiheuristic approach to discrete optimization problems | |
Heredia et al. | Improving detection of untrustworthy online reviews using ensemble learners combined with feature selection | |
Albar et al. | Fast and frugal heuristics for new product screening–is managerial judgment ‘good enough?’ | |
Park et al. | Comparing machine and human ability to detect phishing emails | |
Bryson et al. | Envisioning futures for climate change policy development: scenarios use in European environmental policy institutions | |
Sassi et al. | A competitive intelligence solution to predict competitor action using K-modes algorithm and rough set theory | |
Davis et al. | Uncertainty-sensitive heterogeneous information fusion: assessing threat with soft, uncertain, and conflicting evidence | |
Blume et al. | Dynamic coordination via organizational routines | |
Khoshkbarchi et al. | Coping with unfair ratings in reputation systems based on learning approach | |
Ramsey | Optimal Selection from a set of offers using a short list | |
Fazlollahtabar | Applying multiple-criteria decision making methods for developing information technology industry | |
Enembreck et al. | Learning drifting negotiations | |
Zheng et al. | Modeling stochastic service time for complex on-demand food delivery | |
Hougaard et al. | Weighted overlap dominance–a procedure for interactive selection on multidimensional interval data | |
Voß | Successfully Using ChatGPT in Logistics: Are We There Yet? |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application |
Ref document number: 08851482 Country of ref document: EP Kind code of ref document: A1 |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2705212 Country of ref document: CA |
|
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 1008534 Country of ref document: GB Kind code of ref document: A Free format text: PCT FILING DATE = 20081113 |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 1008534.8 Country of ref document: GB |
|
NENP | Non-entry into the national phase |
Ref country code: DE |
|
122 | Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase |
Ref document number: 08851482 Country of ref document: EP Kind code of ref document: A1 |