IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v27y2019i2d10.1007_s10100-018-0568-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incomplete paired comparisons in case of multiple choice and general log-concave probability density functions

Author

Listed:
  • Éva Orbán-Mihálykó

    (University of Pannonia)

  • Csaba Mihálykó

    (University of Pannonia)

  • László Koltay

    (University of Pannonia)

Abstract

A scoring method based on paired comparison allowing multiple choice is investigated. We allow general log-concave probability density functions for the random variables describing the difference of the objects. This case involves Bradley–Terry models and Thurstone models as well. A sufficient condition is proved for the existence and uniqueness of the maximum likelihood estimation of the parameters in case of incomplete comparisons. The axiomatic properties of the method are also investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & Csaba Mihálykó & László Koltay, 2019. "Incomplete paired comparisons in case of multiple choice and general log-concave probability density functions," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 515-532, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:27:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10100-018-0568-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-018-0568-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10100-018-0568-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-018-0568-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pavel Yu. Chebotarev & Elena Shamis, 1998. "Characterizations of scoring methodsfor preference aggregation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 299-332, January.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    3. Julio González-Díaz & Ruud Hendrickx & Edwin Lohmann, 2014. "Paired comparisons analysis: an axiomatic approach to ranking methods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 139-169, January.
    4. Alan Agresti, 1992. "Analysis of Ordinal Paired Comparison Data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 41(2), pages 287-297, June.
    5. Frederick Mosteller, 1951. "Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: II. The effect of an aberrant standard deviation when equal standard deviations and equal correlations are assumed," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(2), pages 203-206, June.
    6. Stern, Hal, 1992. "Are all linear paired comparison models empirically equivalent?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 103-117, February.
    7. Frederick Mosteller, 1951. "Remarks on the method of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(1), pages 3-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Osei, Prince P. & Davidov, Ori, 2022. "Bayesian linear models for cardinal paired comparison data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    2. László Csató, 2015. "A graph interpretation of the least squares ranking method," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 44(1), pages 51-69, January.
    3. Éva Orbán-Mihálykó & Csaba Mihálykó & László Koltay, 2019. "A generalization of the Thurstone method for multiple choice and incomplete paired comparisons," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(1), pages 133-159, March.
    4. Vincent Buskens & Jeroen Weesie, 2000. "An Experiment On The Effects Of Embeddedness In Trust Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 12(2), pages 227-253, May.
    5. Mark Glickman, 2001. "Dynamic paired comparison models with stochastic variances," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 673-689.
    6. László Csató, 2019. "An impossibility theorem for paired comparisons," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 497-514, June.
    7. Lendie Follett & Heath Henderson, 2022. "A hybrid approach to targeting social assistance," Papers 2201.01356, arXiv.org.
    8. Centola, Damon & van de Rijt, Arnout, 2015. "Choosing your network: Social preferences in an online health community," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 19-31.
    9. Csató, László, 2013. "Rangsorolás páros összehasonlításokkal. Kiegészítések a felvételizői preferencia-sorrendek módszertanához [Paired comparisons ranking. A supplement to the methodology of application-based preferenc," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(12), pages 1333-1353.
    10. Vicente Rodríguez Montequín & Joaquín Manuel Villanueva Balsera & Marina Díaz Piloñeta & César Álvarez Pérez, 2020. "A Bradley-Terry Model-Based Approach to Prioritize the Balance Scorecard Driving Factors: The Case Study of a Financial Software Factory," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-15, February.
    11. Mukhtar Ali, 1998. "Probability models on horse-race outcomes," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(2), pages 221-229.
    12. Donald Martin, 1999. "Paired comparison models applied to the design of the Major League baseball play-offs," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 69-80.
    13. Csató, László & Tóth, Csaba, 2020. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 309-320.
    14. Kwan, Ying Keung & Ip, Wai Cheung & Kwan, Patrick, 2000. "A crime index with Thurstone's scaling of crime severity," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 237-244.
    15. L'aszl'o Csat'o & Csaba T'oth, 2018. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," Papers 1810.04087, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2020.
    16. Csató, László, 2017. "European qualifiers to the 2018 FIFA World Cup can be manipulated," MPRA Paper 82652, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Elliott, Michael A., 2010. "Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 750-763.
    18. S. S. Dabadghao & B. Vaziri, 2022. "The predictive power of popular sports ranking methods in the NFL, NBA, and NHL," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2767-2783, July.
    19. Jose Pina-Sánchez & John Paul Gosling, 2020. "Tackling selection bias in sentencing data analysis: a new approach based on a scale of severity," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(3), pages 1047-1073, June.
    20. Julio González-Díaz & Ruud Hendrickx & Edwin Lohmann, 2014. "Paired comparisons analysis: an axiomatic approach to ranking methods," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 42(1), pages 139-169, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:27:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10100-018-0568-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.