Bustince Sola, HumbertoBedregal, BenjaminCampión Arrastia, María JesúsSilva, Ivanoska daFernández Fernández, Francisco JavierInduráin Eraso, EstebanRaventós Pujol, ArmajacSantiago, Regivan2021-09-142021-12-0920201063-670610.1109/TFUZZ.2020.3042611https://academica-e.unavarra.es/handle/2454/40484Throughout this paper, our main idea is to analyze from a theoretical and normative point of view different methods to aggregate individual rankings. To do so, first we introduce the concept of a general mean on an abstract set. This new concept conciliates the social choice where well-known impossibility results as the Arrovian ones are encountered and the decision-making approaches where the necessity of fusing rankings is unavoidable. Moreover it gives rise to a reasonable definition of the concept of a ranking fusion function that does indeed satisfy the axioms of a general mean. Then we will introduce some methods to build ranking fusion functions, paying a special attention to the use of score functions, and pointing out the equivalence between ranking and scoring. To conclude, we prove that any ranking fusion function introduces a partial order on rankings implemented on a finite set of alternatives. Therefore, this allows us to compare rankings and different methods of aggregation, so that in practice one should look for the maximal elements with respect to such orders defined on rankings IEEE.15 p.application/pdfeng© 2020 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted component of this work in other work.AggregationDecision MakingGeneral meansRankingRanking optimalityScore functionsSocial choiceinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAcceso abierto / Sarbide irekia