Hubbry Logo
search button
Sign in
Tournament solution
Tournament solution
Comunity Hub
arrow-down
History
arrow-down
starMore
arrow-down
bob

Bob

Have a question related to this hub?

bob

Alice

Got something to say related to this hub?
Share it here.

#general is a chat channel to discuss anything related to the hub.
Hubbry Logo
search button
Sign in
Tournament solution
Community hub for the Wikipedia article
logoWikipedian hub
Welcome to the community hub built on top of the Tournament solution Wikipedia article. Here, you can discuss, collect, and organize anything related to Tournament solution. The purpose of the hub is to c...
Add your contribution
Tournament solution

A tournament solution is a function that maps an oriented complete graph to a nonempty subset of its vertices. It can informally be thought of as a way to find the "best" alternatives among all of the alternatives that are "competing" against each other in the tournament. Tournament solutions originate from social choice theory,[1][2][3][4] but have also been considered in sports competition, game theory,[5] multi-criteria decision analysis, biology,[6][7] webpage ranking,[8] and dueling bandit problems.[9]

In the context of social choice theory, tournament solutions are closely related to Fishburn's C1 social choice functions,[10] and thus seek to show who are the strongest candidates in some sense.

A tournament on 4 vertices: ,

Definition

[edit]

A tournament graph is a tuple where is a set of vertices (called alternatives) and is a connex and asymmetric binary relation over the vertices. In social choice theory, the binary relation typically represents the pairwise majority comparison between alternatives.

A tournament solution is a function that maps each tournament to a nonempty subset of the alternatives (called the choice set[2]) and does not distinguish between isomorphic tournaments:

If is a graph isomorphism between two tournaments and , then

Examples

[edit]

Common examples of tournament solutions are the:[1][2]

References

  1. ^ a b Laslier, J.-F. [in French] (1997). Tournament Solutions and Majority Voting. Springer Verlag.
  2. ^ a b c Felix Brandt; Markus Brill; Paul Harrenstein (28 April 2016). "Chapter 3: Tournament Solutions" (PDF). In Felix Brandt; Vincent Conitzer; Ulle Endriss; Jérôme Lang; Ariel D. Procaccia (eds.). Handbook of Computational Social Choice. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-316-48975-8.
  3. ^ Brandt, F. (2009). Tournament Solutions - Extensions of Maximality and Their Applications to Decision-Making. Habilitation Thesis, Faculty for Mathematics, Computer Science, and Statistics, University of Munich.
  4. ^ Scott Moser. "Chapter 6: Majority rule and tournament solutions". In J. C. Heckelman; N. R. Miller (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Voting. Edgar Elgar.
  5. ^ Fisher, D. C.; Ryan, J. (1995). "Tournament games and positive tournaments". Journal of Graph Theory. 19 (2): 217–236. doi:10.1002/jgt.3190190208.
  6. ^ Allesina, S.; Levine, J. M. (2011). "A competitive network theory of species diversity". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (14): 5638–5642. Bibcode:2011PNAS..108.5638A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014428108. PMC 3078357. PMID 21415368.
  7. ^ Landau, H. G. (1951). "On dominance relations and the structure of animal societies: I. Effect of inherent characteristics". Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. 13 (1): 1–19. doi:10.1007/bf02478336.
  8. ^ Felix Brandt; Felix Fischer (2007). "PageRank as a Weak Tournament Solution" (PDF). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). 3rd International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics (WINE). Vol. 4858. San Diego, USA: Springer. pp. 300–305.
  9. ^ Siddartha Ramamohan; Arun Rajkumar; Shivani Agarwal (2016). Dueling Bandits: Beyond Condorcet Winners to General Tournament Solutions (PDF). 29th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2016). Barcelona, Spain. Archived from the original on December 26, 2016.
  10. ^ Fishburn, P. C. (1977). "Condorcet Social Choice Functions". SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics. 33 (3): 469–489. doi:10.1137/0133030.