Approaches for inequity-averse sorting

Karsu, Özlem

doi:10.1016/j.cor.2015.08.004

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible to check dominance with respect to A ( R ) using linear programming models and this is considered in some studies (see e.g. Armbruster and Delage, 2015 ;Karsu, 2016 ). However, to our knowledge, the problem of checking dominance with respect to Q sym ( R ) has not been tackled in the literature so far.…”

Section: The Usefulness Of Preference Information: Conditional Dominancementioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing preferences for inequality aversion in decision support

Karsu

Morton²,

Argyris

2018

European Journal of Operational Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigate the situation where there is interest in ranking distributions (of income, of wealth, of health, of service levels) across a population, in which individuals are considered preferentially indistinguishable and where there is some limited information about social pref- erences. We use a natural dominance relation, generalized Lorenz dominance, used in welfare comparisons in economic theory. In some settings there may be additional information about preferences (for example, if there is policy statement that one distribution is preferred to an- other) and any dominance relation should respect such preferences. However, characterising this sort of conditional dominance relation (specifically, dominance with respect to the set of all symmetric increasing quasiconcave functions in line with given preference information) turns out to be computationally challenging. This challenge comes about because, through the as- sumption of symmetry, any one preference statement (“I prefer giving $100 to Jane and $110 to John over giving $150 to Jane and $90 to John”) implies a large number of other preference statements (“I prefer giving $110 to Jane and $100 to John over giving $150 to Jane and $90 to John”; “I prefer giving $100 to Jane and $110 to John over giving $90 to Jane and $150 to John”). We present theoretical results that help deal with these challenges and present tractable linear programming formulations for testing whether dominance holds between any given pair of distributions. We also propose an interactive decision support procedure for ranking a given set of distributions and demonstrate its performance through computational testing

show abstract

Section: The Usefulness Of Preference Information: Conditional Dominancementioning

confidence: 99%

Capturing preferences for inequality aversion in decision support

Karsu

Morton²,

Argyris

2018

European Journal of Operational Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To test if orderings are robust for a subset of rank-dependent socioeconomic health inequality indices obeying these pro-poor ethical principles, Makdissi and Yazbeck (2014) define higher order s-health concentration curves, C s i (p). 13 These curves are defined on the interval [0, 1] as:…”

Section: Pro-poor Ethical Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since many of health variables available in surveys are categorical, future research is needed to allow the researcher to use cardinal variables while dealing simultaneously with the multiplicity of social weight functions and of cardinal scales.In addition, it may be argued that the normative views presented in this paper (rankdependent views) are debatable. One could extend this paper to account for this possibility by followingKarsu (2016) andKarsu, Morton and Argyris (2012) and imposing other normative restrictions on the decision maker's preferences. This can be achieved by proposing a class of indices displaying aversion to pure health inequality (by transforming the health level using an s-concave function) in addition to aversion to socioeconomic health inequality as inMakdissi and Yazbeck (2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Income-related health transfers principles and orderings of joint distributions of income and health

Khaled

Makdissi

Yazbeck

2018

Journal of Health Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this article is to provide the analyst with the necessary tools that allow for a robust ordering of joint distributions of health and income. We contribute to the literature on the measurement and inference of socioeconomic health inequality in three distinct but complementary ways. First, we provide a formalization of the socioeconomic health inequality-specific ethical principle introduced by Erreygers et al. (2012) . Second, we propose new graphical tools and dominance tests for the identification of robust orderings of joint distributions of income and health associated with this new ethical principle. Finally, based on both pro-poor and pro-extreme ranks ethical principles we address a very important aspect of dominance literature: the inference. To illustrate the empirical relevance of the proposed approach, we compare joint distributions of income and a health-related behavior in the United States in 1997 and 2014.

show abstract

“…[17] extends the approach by modifying and using it on a equitable resource allocation setting, where the alternatives correspond to distributions of a single benefit to multiple entities and the DM has fairness concerns, i.e. there is symmetry.…”

Section: Uta Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They argue that the aggregation function has to be strictly increasing for each criterion in a minimization setting to guarantee the consistency of the results. [17] provides sorting algorithms for single outcome allocations where the DM's preferences are assumed to be in line with impartiality and convexity assumptions.…”

Section: Multiple Criteria Choice Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Equitable decision making approaches over allocations of multiple benefits to multiple entities

Kaynar

Karsu

2018

Omega

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we develop decision support tools for policy makers that will help them make choices among a set of allocation alternatives. We assume that alternatives are evaluated based on their benefits to different users and that there are multiple benefit (output) types to consider. We assume that the policy maker has both efficiency (maximizing total output) and equity (distributing outputs across different users as fair as possible) concerns. This problem is a multicriteria decision making problem where the alternatives are represented with matrices rather than vectors.We develop interactive algorithms that guide a policy maker to her most preferred solution (a set of most preferred solutions), which are based on utility additive (UTA) and convex cone methods. Our computational experiments demonstrate the satisfactory performance of the algorithms. We believe that such decision support tools may be of great use in practice and help in moving towards fair and efficient allocation decisions. Bu çalışmada, karar vericilere proje alternatifleri arasında başlatılacak olanı seçerken yardımcı olacak karar destek sistemleri geliştirilmiştir. Proje alternatiflerinin birden fazla çıktının birden fazla kullanıcıya farklı dagılımlarına karşılık geldigi bu problemde, karar vericilerin alternatifleri sadece dagıtılan çıktının toplam miktarına göre degil, çıktıların kullanıcılara nasıl dagıtıldıgına göre de degerlendirdigi varsayılmaktadır. Bu problem, alternatiflerin vektörler yerine matrislerle gösterildigi, çok kriterli bir karar verme problemidir. KeywordsKarar vericiyi, en çok tercih ettigi alternatife yönlendirecek iki ayrı interaktif yöntem geliştirilmiştir. Bu yöntemlerden ilki, toplanabilir fayda skorları yöntemine (UTA) dayanırken, digeri konveks koni yöntemi kullanılarak geliştirilmiştir. Elde ettigimiz sonuçlar dogrultusunda iki yöntemin de yeterli performansa sahip oldugu gözlemlenmiştir. Bu tür karar destek sistemlerinin politika yapım süreçlerinde karar vericileri eşitlikçi ve verimli alternatiflere yönlendirmekte faydalı olacagına inanıyoruz.

show abstract

Approaches for inequity-averse sorting

Cited by 11 publications

References 23 publications

Capturing preferences for inequality aversion in decision support

Capturing preferences for inequality aversion in decision support

Income-related health transfers principles and orderings of joint distributions of income and health

Equitable decision making approaches over allocations of multiple benefits to multiple entities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About