ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Ordering by weighted number of wins gives a good ranking for weighted tournaments
Full text PdfPdf (488 KB)
Source Symposium on Discrete Algorithms archive
Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithm table of contents
Miami, Florida
Pages: 776 - 782  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:0-89871-605-5
Authors
Don Coppersmith  Center for Communication Research, IDA, Princeton, NJ
Lisa Fleischer  IBM TJ Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY
Atri Rudra  University of Washington, Seattle, WA
Sponsors
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
: SIAM Activity Group on Discrete Mathematics
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 48,   Citation Count: 14
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1109557.1109642
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We consider the following simple algorithm for feedback arc set problem in weighted tournaments --- order the vertices by their weighted indegrees. We show that this algorithm has an approximation guarantee of 5 if the weights satisfy probability constraints (for any pair of vertices u and v, wuv + wvu = 1). Special cases of feedback arc set problem in such weighted tournaments include feedback arc set problem in unweighted tournaments and rank aggregation. Finally, for any constant ε > 0, we exhibit an infinite family of (unweighted) tournaments for which the above algorithm (irrespective of how ties are broken) has an approximation ratio of 5 - ε.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
J. J. Bartholdi, C. A. Tovey, and M. A. Trick. Voting schemes for which it can be difficult to tell who won the election. Social Choice and Welfare, 6(2):157--165, 1989.
 
6
 
7
J. C. Borda. Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, 1781.
 
8
V. Conitzer. Computing Slater Rankings Using Similarities Among Candidates. Manuscript, 2005. Available at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~conitzer/slater.pdf
 
9
P. Diaconis and R. Graham. Spearman's footrule as a measure of disarray. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(2):262--268, 1977.
10
11
 
12
G. Even, J. S. Naor, M. Sudan, and B. Schieber. Approximating minimum feedback sets and multicuts in directed graphs. Algorithmica, 20(2):151--174, 1998.
 
13
R. Fagin, R. Kumar, M. Mahdian, D. Sivakumar, and E. Vee. Rank Aggregation: An Algorithmic Perspective. Unpublished Manuscript, 2005.
 
14
 
15
R. Karp. Reducibility among combinatorial problems. Complexity of Computer Computations, pages 85--104, 1972.
 
16
C. Papadimitriou and M. Yannakakis. Optimization, approximation, and complexity classes. Journal of Computer System Science, 43:425--440, 1991.
 
17
P. Seymour. Packing directed circuits fractionally. Combinatorica, 15(2):281--288, 1995.
 
18
A. van Zuylen. Deterministic approximation algorithms for ranking and clusterings. Cornell ORIE Tech Report No. 1431, 2005.

CITED BY  14

Collaborative Colleagues:
Don Coppersmith: colleagues
Lisa Fleischer: colleagues
Atri Rudra: colleagues