arXiv++ Combinatorics

A number of citation indices have been proposed for measuring and ranking the research publication records of scholars. Some of the best known indices, such as those proposed by Hirsch and Woeginger, are designed to reward most highly those records that strike some balance between productivity (number of papers published), and impact (frequency with which those papers are cited). A large number of rarely cited publications will not score well, nor will a very small number of heavily cited papers. We discuss three new citation indices, one of which was independently proposed in \cite{FHLB}. Each rests on the notion of scale invariance, fundamental to John Nash's solution of the two-person bargaining problem. Our main focus is on one of these -- a scale invariant version of the Hirsch index. We argue that it has advantages over the original; it produces fairer rankings within subdisciplines, is more decisive (discriminates more finely, yielding fewer ties) and more dynamic (growing over time via more frequent, smaller increments), and exhibits enhanced centrality and tail balancedness. Simulations suggest that scale invariance improves robustness under Poisson noise, with increased decisiveness having no cost in terms of the number of ``accidental" reversals, wherein random irregularities cause researcher A to receive a lower index value than B, although A's productivity and impact are both slightly higher than B's. Moreover, we provide an axiomatic characterization of the scale invariant Hirsch index, via axioms that bear a close relationship, in discrete analogue, to those used by Nash in \cite{Nas50}. This argues for the mathematical naturality of the new index. An earlier version was presented at the 5th World Congress of the Game Theory Society, Maastricht, Netherlands in 2016.

A tangle is a connected topological space constructed by gluing several copies of the unit interval $[0, 1]$. We explore which tangles guarantee envy-free allocations of connected shares for n agents, meaning that such allocations exist no matter which monotonic and continuous functions represent agents' valuations. Each single tangle $\mathcal{T}$ corresponds in a natural way to an infinite topological class $\mathcal{G}(\mathcal{T})$ of multigraphs, many of which are graphs. This correspondence links EF fair division of tangles to EFk$_{outer}$ fair division of graphs. We know from Bilò et al that all Hamiltonian graphs guarantee EF1$_{outer}$ allocations when the number of agents is 2, 3, 4 and guarantee EF2$_{outer}$ allocations for arbitrarily many agents. We show that exactly six tangles are stringable; these guarantee EF connected allocations for any number of agents, and their associated topological classes contain only Hamiltonian graphs. Any non-stringable tangle has a finite upper bound r on the number of agents for which EF allocations of connected shares are guaranteed. Most graphs in the associated non-stringable topological class are not Hamiltonian, and a negative transfer theorem shows that for each $k \geq 1$ most of these graphs fail to guarantee EFk$_{outer}$ allocations of vertices for r + 1 or more agents. This answers a question posed in Bilò et al, and explains why a focus on Hamiltonian graphs was necessary. With bounds on the number of agents, however, we obtain positive results for some non-stringable classes. An elaboration of Stromquist's moving knife procedure shows that the non-stringable lips tangle guarantees envy-free allocations of connected shares for three agents. We then modify the discrete version of Stromquist's procedure in Bilò et al to show that all graphs in the topological class guarantee EF1$_{outer}$ allocations for three agents.

We introduce the $(j,k)$-Kemeny rule -- a generalization of Kemeny's voting rule that aggregates $j$-chotomous weak orders into a $k$-chotomous weak order. Special cases of $(j,k)$-Kemeny include approval voting, the mean rule and Borda mean rule, as well as the Borda count and plurality voting. Why, then, is the winner problem computationally tractable for each of these other rules, but intractable for Kemeny? We show that intractability of winner determination for the $(j,k)$-Kemeny rule first appears at the $j=3$, $k=3$ level. The proof rests on a reduction of max cut to a related problem on weighted tournaments, and reveals that computational complexity arises from the cyclic part in the fundamental decomposition of a weighted tournament into cyclic and cocyclic components. Thus the existence of majority cycles -- the engine driving both Arrow's impossibility theorem and the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem -- also serves as a source of computational complexity in social choice.