Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 cited by

A successive elimination algorithm on the pairwise majority matrix exactly recovers the Schulze winner set.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-28 11:46 UTC pith:E7UI4JJY

load-bearing objection The paper claims a successive-elimination algorithm on the pairwise matrix exactly matches the Schulze winner set and that accumulated survival sets equal the Schwartz set, but the abstract leaves the mapping unshown. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2606.02213 v2 pith:E7UI4JJY submitted 2026-06-01 econ.TH cs.DM

A New Method for Finding the Schulze Winner Set

Satoru Fujishige , Leo Goto , Satoshi Nakada This is my paper
classification econ.TH cs.DM
keywords Schulze ruleSchwartz setpairwise majority comparisonsvoting algorithmwinner determinationCondorcet methodssocial choice theory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces an algorithm that derives a pairwise majority-comparison matrix from voter preferences and successively eliminates weaker candidates according to a defined rule. It proves that the final set of survivors matches the winner set produced by the Schulze rule. The same process yields the Schwartz set as the union of all survival sets across elimination rounds. A sympathetic reader cares because the method supplies both an alternative computation route for Schulze winners and a formal link between two established Condorcet-related solution concepts.

Core claim

The proposed successive elimination algorithm, applied to the pairwise majority-comparison matrix derived from voter preferences, induces precisely the winner set of the Schulze rule. The algorithm successively eliminates weaker candidates in terms of all-pairs comparisons. The direct sum of the survival sets obtained at each elimination round coincides with the Schwartz set. These equivalences provide a formal mathematical foundation for the relationship between the Schulze winner set and the Schwartz set, along with a new Condorcetian interpretation of the Schulze winner set.

What carries the argument

The successive elimination rule on the pairwise majority-comparison matrix that removes weaker candidates step by step.

Load-bearing premise

The successive elimination rule defined on the pairwise majority-comparison matrix is assumed to produce a set that coincides with the Schulze winners.

What would settle it

A concrete preference profile in which the set of candidates that survive the successive elimination differs from the set of candidates that win under the Schulze rule via strongest-path comparisons.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The final non-eliminated candidates are exactly the Schulze winners.
  • The union of survival sets across all rounds equals the Schwartz set.
  • The procedure supplies an alternative computation method for the Schulze winner set.
  • The algorithm interprets the Schulze rule as a dual process to Condorcet's cycle splitting.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The equivalence may allow verification of Schulze winners without explicit path-strength calculations in some cases.
  • Similar elimination characterizations could apply to other tournament solutions in social choice.
  • Empirical tests on large preference data could compare runtimes of this method against standard Schulze implementations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a successive-elimination algorithm operating on the pairwise majority-comparison matrix and asserts that it produces exactly the Schulze winner set; it further asserts that the direct sum of the survival sets across elimination rounds coincides with the Schwartz set, thereby supplying a formal link between the two concepts and a Condorcetian reading of Schulze.

Significance. If the two equivalence claims are rigorously established, the paper would supply a new algorithmic characterization of the Schulze rule together with an explicit mathematical relation to the Schwartz set. The approach is parameter-free and avoids ad-hoc constructions, which would be a genuine strength for computational social choice.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the algorithm 'induces exactly the winner set of the Schulze rule' is stated without any definition of the successive-elimination rule, the 'weaker' criterion, or the stopping condition. Consequently it is impossible to check whether the procedure reproduces the max-min path-strength definition of Schulze (1997), especially on profiles containing cycles of unequal strength.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the second equivalence—that 'the direct sum of the survival sets obtained at each elimination round coincides with the Schwartz set'—is likewise asserted without derivation, example verification, or explicit mapping to Schwartz's top-cycle definition. This leaves the claimed 'formal mathematical foundation' unsupported.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and will revise the abstract for improved clarity while preserving the technical content already established in the body of the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the algorithm 'induces exactly the winner set of the Schulze rule' is stated without any definition of the successive-elimination rule, the 'weaker' criterion, or the stopping condition. Consequently it is impossible to check whether the procedure reproduces the max-min path-strength definition of Schulze (1997), especially on profiles containing cycles of unequal strength.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, as a concise summary, omits explicit definitions of the successive-elimination procedure, the weaker-criterion comparison, and the stopping condition. These elements are formally defined in Section 2, and Theorem 1 establishes equivalence to the Schulze winner set via direct comparison with max-min path strengths, including on profiles with cycles of unequal strength. To address the concern, we will revise the abstract to include a brief, self-contained description of the algorithm and stopping rule. This change will make the central claim more immediately verifiable from the abstract alone. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the second equivalence—that 'the direct sum of the survival sets obtained at each elimination round coincides with the Schwartz set'—is likewise asserted without derivation, example verification, or explicit mapping to Schwartz's top-cycle definition. This leaves the claimed 'formal mathematical foundation' unsupported.

    Authors: The abstract summarizes the second result; the full derivation, including the explicit mapping from successive survival sets to Schwartz's top-cycle definition, appears in Theorem 2. Section 3 supplies example verifications on cyclic profiles. We will revise the abstract to add a short clause referencing this mapping, thereby strengthening the summary of the formal link without altering the underlying proofs. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; equivalence is a claimed external proof to Schulze (1997)

full rationale

The paper defines a successive-elimination algorithm on the pairwise majority matrix and states that it 'induces exactly the winner set of the Schulze rule (Schulze, 1997)'. This is presented as a theorem to be shown, citing the external 1997 source rather than a self-citation or prior work by the authors. A second equivalence to the Schwartz set (Schwartz, 1972) is likewise external. No equations or definitions in the provided abstract reduce the claimed result to a fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or ansatz imported via the authors' own prior work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the external benchmark definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The claims rest on standard definitions of pairwise majority matrices and the Schulze/Schwartz sets from prior literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5659 in / 1035 out tokens · 16895 ms · 2026-06-28T11:46:37.751118+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We propose a new voting algorithm based on the pairwise majority-comparison matrix derived from voters' preference profiles. We show that this algorithm induces exactly the winner set of the Schulze rule (Schulze, 1997). Our algorithm successively eliminates weaker candidates in terms of all-pairs comparisons, thereby reflecting a dual spirit to Condorcet's original idea of splitting preference cycles (de Condorcet, 1785). We further show that the direct sum of the survival sets obtained at each elimination round coincides with the Schwartz set (Schwartz, 1972). These two equivalence results provide a formal mathematical foundation for the ``folklore'' relationship between the Schulze winner set and the Schwartz set, as well as a new Condorcetian interpretation of the Schulze winner set.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.02213 by Leo Goto, Satoru Fujishige, Satoshi Nakada.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example from Doring et al. ¨ (2026). Proposition 2. For any pairwise comparison network N = (𝐺𝛾, 𝛾) and the corresponding majority margin network N𝑀 = (𝐺𝜇, 𝜇), we have 𝐹 𝑆𝐷 (N ) = 𝐹 𝑆𝐷 (N𝑀). 3.1 Equivalence of the Schulze rule We are ready to state our main equivalence result. Theorem 1. For any pairwise comparison network N = (𝐺𝛾, 𝛾), 𝐹 𝑆𝐷 (N ) = 𝐹 𝑆𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑙𝑧𝑒 (N ). We first show the following lemma for th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: An example from Doring et al. ¨ (2026) (continued). The remaining steps of algorithm proceedes with (7) → (8) → (9) → (10) → (11). Then, the final social ordering 𝑃 corresponds to 𝑏𝑃𝑎𝑃𝑐𝑃𝑒𝑃𝑑. 5.2 Satisfaction of the new axioms Schulze (2003, 2011, 2025) extensively investigate the axiomatic properties of the Schulze rule. Thanks to the equivalence between our new algorithm and the Schulze winner set, we can… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Scoring Rules as Least-Squares Estimators

    econ.TH 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0

    Scoring rules coincide with cosine-similarity rules because both are optimized by the arithmetic mean of the score vectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Duncan Black , title =

  2. [3]

    Journal of Economic Theory , volume =

    Florian Brandl and Dominik Peters , title =. Journal of Economic Theory , volume =

  3. [4]

    Journal of Economic Theory , volume =

    Stephen Ching , title =. Journal of Economic Theory , volume =

  4. [5]

    Gromov's Approximating Tree and the All-Pairs Bottleneck Paths Problem , journal =

    Anders Cornect and Eduardo Mart. Gromov's Approximating Tree and the All-Pairs Bottleneck Paths Problem , journal =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  5. [6]

    Marquis de Condorcet , title =

  6. [7]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    The River Voting Method , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  7. [8]

    Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages =

    Ran Duan and Seth Pettie , title =. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) , pages =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  8. [9]

    Floyd , title =

    Robert W. Floyd , title =. Communications of the ACM , volume =. 1962 , doi =

    1962

  9. [10]

    Kemeny , title =

    John G. Kemeny , title =. Daedalus , volume =. 1959 , url =

    1959

  10. [11]

    Kondratev and Egor Ianovski and Alexander S

    Aleksei Y. Kondratev and Egor Ianovski and Alexander S. Nesterov , title =. Operations Research , volume =

  11. [12]

    Goodin , title =

    Christian List and Robert E. Goodin , title =. Journal of Political Philosophy , volume =. 2001 , doi =

    2001

  12. [13]

    May , title =

    Kenneth O. May , title =. Econometrica , volume =

  13. [14]

    Z. Emel \". Consistency of Scoring Rules: A Reinvestigation of Composition-consistency , journal =

  14. [15]

    Richelson , title =

    Jeffrey T. Richelson , title =. Journal of Economic Theory , volume =

  15. [16]

    1997 , month = oct, url =

    Markus Schulze , title =. 1997 , month = oct, url =

    1997

  16. [17]

    Voting Matters , number =

    Markus Schulze , title =. Voting Matters , number =

  17. [18]

    Social Choice and Welfare , volume =

    Markus Schulze , title =. Social Choice and Welfare , volume =

  18. [20]

    Thomas Schwartz , title =. No\^

  19. [22]

    Ryan Williams and Raphael Yuster , title =

    Virginia Vassilevska and R. Ryan Williams and Raphael Yuster , title =. Theory of Computing , volume =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  20. [23]

    Journal of the ACM , volume =

    Stephen Warshall , title =. Journal of the ACM , volume =. 1962 , doi =

    1962

  21. [24]

    Peyton Young , title =

    H. Peyton Young , title =. American Political Science Review , volume =

  22. [25]

    Peyton Young , title =

    H. Peyton Young , title =. Journal of Economic Perspectives , volume =

  23. [26]

    SIAM Journal on applied Mathematics , volume=

    A consistent Extension of Condorcet’s Election Principle , author=. SIAM Journal on applied Mathematics , volume=. 1978 , publisher=

    1978

  24. [27]

    Bernstein, A., M. P. Gutenberg, and T. Saranurak (2021): Deterministic Decremental Reachability, SCC, and Shortest Paths via Directed Expanders and Congestion Balancing, arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.02584, arXiv:2009.02584v3 [cs.DS]

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [28]

    Brandl, F. and D. Peters (2022): Approval Voting under Dichotomous Preferences: A Catalogue of Characterizations, Journal of Economic Theory, 205, 105532

    2022

  26. [29]

    (1996): A Simple Characterization of Plurality Rule, Journal of Economic Theory, 71, 298--302

    Ching, S. (1996): A Simple Characterization of Plurality Rule, Journal of Economic Theory, 71, 298--302

    1996

  27. [30]

    Cornect, A. and E. Mart \'i nez-Pedroza (2024): Gromov's Approximating Tree and the All-Pairs Bottleneck Paths Problem, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05338

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [31]

    (1785): Essai sur l'application de l'analyse \`a la probabilit\'e des d\'ecisions rendues \`a la pluralit\'e des voix, Paris: Imprimerie Royale

    de Condorcet, M. (1785): Essai sur l'application de l'analyse \`a la probabilit\'e des d\'ecisions rendues \`a la pluralit\'e des voix, Paris: Imprimerie Royale

  29. [32]

    Brill, and J

    D \"o ring, M., M. Brill, and J. Heitzig (2026): The River Voting Method, in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 40, 16846--16854

    2026

  30. [33]

    Duan, R. and S. Pettie (2009): Fast Algorithms for ( , ) -Matrix Multiplication and Bottleneck Shortest Paths, in Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), 384--391

    2009

  31. [34]

    Floyd, R. W. (1962): Algorithm 97: Shortest Path, Communications of the ACM, 5, 345

    1962

  32. [35]

    Kemeny, J. G. (1959): Mathematics without Numbers, Daedalus, 88, 577--591

    1959

  33. [36]

    Kondratev, A. Y., E. Ianovski, and A. S. Nesterov (2023): How Should We Score Athletes and Candidates: Geometric Scoring Rules, Operations Research, 72

    2023

  34. [37]

    May, K. O. (1952): A Set of Independent Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision, Econometrica, 20, 680--684

    1952

  35. [38]

    \" O zt\" u rk, Z. E. (2020): Consistency of Scoring Rules: A Reinvestigation of Composition-consistency, International Journal of Game Theory, 49, 801--831

    2020

  36. [39]

    Richelson, J. T. (1978): A Characterization Result for the Plurality Rule, Journal of Economic Theory, 19, 548--550

    1978

  37. [40]

    (1997): Condorcet Sub-Cycle Rule, Election Methods Mailing List, first public description of the Schulze method

    Schulze, M. (1997): Condorcet Sub-Cycle Rule, Election Methods Mailing List, first public description of the Schulze method

    1997

  38. [41]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2003): A New Monotonic and Clone-Independent Single-Winner Election Method, Voting Matters, 9--19

    2003

  39. [42]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2011): A New Monotonic, Clone-independent, Reversal Symmetric, and Condorcet-consistent Single-winner Election Method, Social Choice and Welfare, 36, 267--303

    2011

  40. [43]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (2025): The Schulze Method of Voting, arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02973

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [44]

    (1972): Rationality and the Myth of the Maximum, No\^ u s , 6, 97--117

    Schwartz, T. (1972): Rationality and the Myth of the Maximum, No\^ u s , 6, 97--117

    1972

  42. [45]

    Sornat, K., V. V. Williams, and Y. Xu (2021): Fine-grained Complexity and Algorithms for the Schulze Voting Method, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03959, arXiv:2103.03959v2 [cs.DS]

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [46]

    Vassilevska, V., R. R. Williams, and R. Yuster (2009): All Pairs Bottleneck Paths and Max-Min Matrix Products in Truly Subcubic Time, Theory of Computing, 5, 173--189

    2009

  44. [47]

    (1962): A Theorem on Boolean Matrices, Journal of the ACM, 9, 11--12

    Warshall, S. (1962): A Theorem on Boolean Matrices, Journal of the ACM, 9, 11--12

    1962

  45. [48]

    Young, H. P. (1988): Condorcet's Theory of Voting, American Political Science Review, 82, 1231--1244

    1988

  46. [49]

    --- -.1pt --- -.1pt --- (1995): Optimal Voting Rules, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 51--64

    1995

  47. [50]

    Young, H. P. and A. Levenglick (1978): A consistent Extension of Condorcet’s Election Principle, SIAM Journal on applied Mathematics, 35, 285--300

    1978