comments by WDS 1. I think using utility=-distance is not as realistic as something like utility=1/sqrt(1+distance^2)
I claim the latter is more realistic both near 0 distance and near infinite distance. 2. It has been argued that L2 distance may not be as realistic as L1 distance. L2=euclidean L1=taxicab 3. Your "candidates bolted in place" (in locations selected manually) at some point needs to be replaced by an outer loop which chooses their locations from some distribution, and finds average bayesian regret over all candidate locations. If I manually choose locations, I can probably make nearly any method look like "the best" or "worst" method... that is kind of anecdotal evidence versus real evidence. (Not that the anecdotes are uninteresting.) 4. your results look interesting but I do not know what a lot of your voting methods are, e.g. QR, VFA, SPST, C//A, etc. Too abbreviated. Need to supply a key. 5. some conclusions, like RangeNS is better than IRV and IRV-tr and C//A, look fairly solid (happen in all your sims*); others, like Bucklin is better than RangeNS, look inconclusive (happen in some of your sims, but reverse happens in other sims) *There was one exception, but it had very small regret for all methods other than MMPO and ApprZIS. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step) and math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
