Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T14:54:17.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Range of Asymptotic Behaviour of the Optimality Probability of the Expert and Majority Rules

Part of: Operations research and management science Mathematical economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2016

Daniel Berend  and
Luba Sapir
Daniel Berend*
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University
Luba Sapir*
Affiliation:
Ben-Gurion University
*
∗ Postal address: Departments of Mathematics and of Computer Science, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel. Email address: [email protected]
∗∗ Postal address: Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel. Email address: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We study the uncertain dichotomous choice model. In this model, a group of expert decision makers is required to select one of two alternatives. The applications of this model are relevant to a wide variety of areas. A decision rule translates the individual opinions of the members into a group decision, and is optimal if it maximizes the probability of the group making a correct choice. In this paper, we assume the correctness probabilities of the experts to be independent random variables selected from some given distribution. Moreover, the ranking of the members in the group is (at least partly) known. Thus, one can follow rules based on this ranking. The extremes are the expert rule and the majority rule. The probabilities of the two extreme rules being optimal were compared in a series of early papers, for a variety of distributions. In most cases, the asymptotic behaviours of the probabilities of the two extreme rules followed the same patterns. Do these patterns hold in general? If not, what are the ranges of possible asymptotic behaviours of the probabilities of the two extreme rules being optimal? In this paper, we provide satisfactory answers to these questions.

Keywords

Dichotomous choicedecision ruleexpert rulemajority ruleoptimality probabilitypartial information

MSC classification

Primary: 91B06: Decision theory
Secondary: 91B12: Voting theory 90B50: Management decision making, including multiple objectives
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 16 - 31
Copyright
© Applied Probability Trust 2006 

References

Austen-Smith, D. and Banks, J. S. (1996). Information aggregation, rationality, and the Condorcet Jury theorem. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 90, 35–45.Google Scholar
Baker, K. M. (ed.) (1976). Condorcet: Selected Writings. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
Ben-Yashar, R. and Paroush, J. (2000). A nonasymptotic Condorcet Jury theorem. Soc. Choice Welf. 17, 189–199.Google Scholar
Berend, D. and Harmse, J. (1993). Expert rule versus majority rule under partial information. Theory Decision 35, 179–197.Google Scholar
Berend, D. and Paroush, J. (1998). When is Condorcet's Jury theorem valid? Soc. Choice Welf. 15, 481–488.Google Scholar
Berend, D. and Sapir, L. (2001). Optimality of the expert rule under partial information. Acta Appl. Math. 69, 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berend, D. and Sapir, L. (2002). Expert rule versus majority rule under partial information. II. J. Appl. Math. Decision Sci. 6, 79–99.Google Scholar
Berend, D. and Sapir, L. (2003). Between the expert and majority rules. Adv. Appl. Prob. 35, 941–960.Google Scholar
Berend, D. and Sapir, L. (2005). Monotonicity in Condorcet Jury theorem. Soc. Choice Welf. 24, 83–92.Google Scholar
Berg, S. (1993). Condorcet's Jury theorem revisited. Europ. J. Political Econ. 9, 437–446.Google Scholar
Berg, S. and Paroush, J. (1998). Collective decision making in hierarchies. Math. Soc. Sci. 35, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, P. J. (1989). Majority systems and the Condorcet Jury theorem. The Statistician 38, 181–189.Google Scholar
Boland, P. J., Proschan, F. and Tong, Y. L. (1989). Modelling dependence in simple and indirect majority systems. J. Appl. Prob. 26, 81–88.Google Scholar
Caritat, M. J. A. N., Marquis de Condorcet, . (1785). Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix. Paris.Google Scholar
Gradstein, M. and Nitzan, S. (1986). Performance evaluation of some special classes of weighted majority rules. Math. Soc. Sci. 12, 31–46.Google Scholar
Grofman, B., Owen, G. and Feld, S. (1983). Thirteen theorems in search of the truth. Theory Decision 15, 261–278.Google Scholar
Karotkin, D. (1998). The network of weighted majority rules and weighted majority games. Games Econom. Behav. 22, 299–315.Google Scholar
Ladha, K. K. (1995). Information polling through majority-rule voting: Condorcet's Jury theorem with correlated votes. J. Econ. Behav. Organizat. 26, 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N. R. (1986). Information, electorates, and democracy: some extensions and interpretations of Condorcet Jury theorem. In Information Pooling and Group Decision Making, eds Grofman, B. N. and Owen, G., JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 173–192.Google Scholar
Nitzan, S. and Paroush, J. (1985). Collective Decision Making. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paroush, J. (1998). Stay away from fair coins: a correct Condorcet Jury theorem. Soc. Choice Welf. 15, 15–20.Google Scholar
Sapir, L. (1998). The optimality of the expert and majority rules under exponentially distributed competence. Theory Decision 45, 19–35.Google Scholar
Sapir, L. (2004). Comparison of the polar decision rules for various types of distributions. Theory Decision 56, 325–343.Google Scholar
Sapir, L. (2005). Generalized means of Jurors' competencies and marginal changes of Jury's size. Math. Soc. Sci. 50, 83–101.Google Scholar
Young, H. P. (1989). Condorcet's theory of voting. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 82, 1231–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar