Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

On Incentive Compatible Competitive Selection Protocol

  • Conference paper
Computing and Combinatorics (COCOON 2006)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 4112))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

The selection problem of m highest ranked out of n candidates is considered for a model while the relative ranking of two candidates is obtained through their pairwise comparison. Deviating from the standard model, it is assumed in this article that the outcome of a pairwise comparison may be manipulated by the two participants. The higher ranked party may intentionally lose to the lower ranked party in order to gain group benefit. We discuss incentive compatible mechanism design issues for such scenarios and develop both possibility and impossibility results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chang, P., Mendonca, D., Yao, X., Raghavachari, M.: An evaluation of ranking methods for multiple incomplete round-robin tournaments. In: Decision Sciences Institute conference 2004 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Chartrand, G., Lesniak, L.: Graphs and Digraphs. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chen, X., Deng, X., Liu, B.J.: On Incentive Compatible Competitive Selection Protocol, full version, available at: http://www.cs.cityu.edu.hk/~deng/

  4. Harary, F., Moser, L.: The theory of round robin tournaments. The American Mathematical Monthly 73(3), 231–246 (1966)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Jech, T.: The ranking of incomplete tournaments: A mathematician’s guide to popular sports. The American Mathematical Monthly 90(4), 246–266 (1983)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Mendonca, D., Raghavachari, M.: Comparing the efficacy of ranking methods for multiple round-robin tournaments. European Journal of Operational Research 123(2000), 593–605 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rubinstein, A.: Ranking the participants in a tournament. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 38(1), 108–111 (1980)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Steinhaus, H.: Mathematical Snapshots. Oxford University Press, New York (1950)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Tsinghua University,  

    Xi Chen

  2. Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong,  

    Xiaotie Deng & Becky Jie Liu

Authors
  1. Xi Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaotie Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Becky Jie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Notre Dame, IN 46556, Notre Dame, USA

    Danny Z. Chen

  2. Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

    D. T. Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chen, X., Deng, X., Liu, B.J. (2006). On Incentive Compatible Competitive Selection Protocol. In: Chen, D.Z., Lee, D.T. (eds) Computing and Combinatorics. COCOON 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4112. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11809678_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11809678_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-36925-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-36926-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics