Ranking Sets of Objects

416 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Handbook of Computational Social Choice (2016, background): “We now describe classes of hedonic games in which the agents’ preferences over coalitions are induced by their ordinal preferences over the other individual agents via set extensions (Hajduková, 2006; Barberà et al., 2004).”
Generalized Gini Indices of Equality of Opportunity (2003, background): “Surveys of this literature may be found in Barberà, Bossert, and Pattanaik [3] and Peragine [20].”
Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Measurement (2016, neutral): “However, the social-choice literature that proposes an axiomatic approach to ranking opportunity sets in terms of freedom of choice is, to a large extent, inspired by the capability approach (Pattanaik and Xu 1990; see also the survey by Barbera, Bossert, and Pattanaik 2004).”
The Measurement of Diversity (2001, background): “…of implicitly defining a class of orderings by focussing on the information required to rank any two sets is analogous to the median-based extension rules that can be found in nonprobabilistic decision models; see, for example, Nitzan and Pattanaik (1984) and Barberà, Bossert, and Pattanaik (2001).”