Aggregating the preferences of a group of experts is a recurring problem in several fields, including engineering design; in a nutshell, each expert formulates an ordinal ranking of a set of alternatives and the resulting rankings should be aggregated into a collective one. Many aggregation models have been proposed in the literature, showing strengths and weaknesses, in line with the implications of Arrow's impossibility theorem. Furthermore, the coherence of the collective ranking with respect to the expert rankings may change depending on: (i) the expert rankings themselves and (ii) the aggregation model adopted. This paper assesses this coherence for a variety of aggregation models, through a recent test based on the Kendall's coefficient of concordance (W), and studies the characteristics of those models that are most likely to achieve higher coherence. Interestingly, the so-called Borda count model often provides best coherence, with some exceptions in the case of collective rankings with ties. The description is supported by practical examples.

中文翻译：

---

聚合工程设计中的多个序数排名：根据 Kendall 的一致性系数得出的最佳模型

汇总一组专家的偏好是多个领域中反复出现的问题，包括工程设计；简而言之，每位专家都制定了一组备选方案的顺序排名，并且应将由此产生的排名汇总为一个集体排名。文献中提出了许多聚合模型，显示了优点和缺点，与阿罗不可能性定理的含义一致。此外，集体排名相对于专家排名的一致性可能会根据：（i）专家排名本身和（ii）采用的聚合模型而改变。本文通过最近基于 Kendall 一致性系数 (W) 的测试评估了各种聚合模型的这种一致性，并研究那些最有可能实现更高一致性的模型的特征。有趣的是，所谓的 Borda 计数模型通常提供最佳的连贯性，但在有关系的集体排名的情况下有一些例外。该描述由实际示例支持。