[EM] Ranked Pairs Feint to Max Gradient Chain Building

[Forest Simmons]

I seem to have lost a draft of a reply ... I won't try to repeat the whole
thing ... just that many numerical experiments are in deed needed ...
specifically to find the best performing defeat strength measures.

Here's one worth exploring ...
max(winning Top, losing Bottom)

Here's an example ...

8 A>B (Sincere is A>C)
6 B>C
4 C (Sincere is C>A)

A>B winning top 8, losing bottom 4
B>C winning top 6, losing bottom 8
C>A winning top 4, losing bottom 10

The max strength is 10 for C>A

This restores the win to the sincere CW.

I like it!

This rule seems to be the best expedient against  Dark Horse winners that
some methods elect when the middle range category is the vague,
other/default category ... in this case the outer categories of definite
approval (equal Top) and definite disapproval (equal Bottom) leave the
middle category as the vague "other" default ... a dark horse red flag for
the method inventor.

Our remedy is the defeat strength's prominent usage of the max value of the
two definite categories as a guard against an unknown nobody winning by
default.

-Forest

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 4:16 AM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet at t-online.de>
wrote:

> On 1/26/23 21:53, Forest Simmons wrote:
>
> > [Again, we used the fact that all candidates are uncovered ... which
> > makes the initial chain head the winner. This helps explain Krisyofer's
> > original observation that got this whole thing started. So you can see
> > why I'm tempted to call this the KKF method!]
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> Sounds good! But I'm increasingly feeling that it's hard to understand
> the tradeoffs of a method without having a view to their behavior, like
> simulations. So if it turns out to be awful in practice, then perhaps
> I'll have to retract my statement :-)
>
> On a broader level, I'm wondering if we should pool our simulators
> somehow to not duplciate the effort it takes to implement methods. But
> my own main simulator is not the prettiest of code, so I would have to
> clean that up first. And then I don't get much further than that!
>
> -km
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20230131/278dd5c0/attachment.htm>