IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/metcap/v2y2000i4d10.1023_a1010058117460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inequalities for Random Utility Models, with Applications to Ranking and Subset Choice Data

Author

Listed:
  • Harry Joe

    (University of British Columbia)

Abstract

Inequalities on orderings of independent random variables are derived in the context of random utility models for ranking and subset choice data. The inequalities can be used to assess whether ranking or subset choice data are consistent with an independent random utility model. The main technique used for the inequalities is “association”, with conditions for the sharpness for the inequalities coming from identifying when the “association” inequality is an equality. Applications to real data sets are given.

Suggested Citation

  • Harry Joe, 2000. "Inequalities for Random Utility Models, with Applications to Ranking and Subset Choice Data," Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 359-372, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:metcap:v:2:y:2000:i:4:d:10.1023_a:1010058117460
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1010058117460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1010058117460
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1010058117460?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. Sattath, Shmuel & Tversky, Amos, 1976. "Unite and Conquer: A Multiplicative Inequality for Choice Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(1), pages 79-89, January.
    2. Michel Regenwetter & Bernard Grofman, 1998. "Approval Voting, Borda Winners, and Condorcet Winners: Evidence from Seven Elections," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 520-533, April.
    3. Horowitz, Joel & Keane, Michael & Bolduc, Denis & Divakar, Suresh & Geweke, John & Gonul, Fosun & Hajivassiliou, Vassilis & Koppelman, Frank & Matzkin, Rosa & Rossi, Peter & Ruud, Paul, 1994. "Advances in Random Utility Models," MPRA Paper 53026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Philip A. Haile & Ali Hortaçsu & Grigory Kosenok, 2008. "On the Empirical Content of Quantal Response Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(1), pages 180-200, March.
    2. Félix Belzunce & Eva-María Ortega & Franco Pellerey & José Ruiz, 2007. "On rankings and top choices in random utility models with dependent utilities," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 66(2), pages 197-212, September.
    3. Joe, Harry, 2002. "Stochastic orderings in random utility models," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 391-404, July.
    4. Chen, John T. & Hoppe, Fred M., 2004. "A connection between successive comparisons and ranking procedures," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 19-25, March.

    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. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2019. "On some k-scoring rules for committee elections: agreement and Condorcet Principle," Working Papers hal-02147735, HAL.
    2. Regenwetter, Michel & Marley, A. A. J. & Grofman, Bernard, 2002. "A general concept of majority rule," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 405-428, July.
    3. Dagsvik, John K., 2018. "Invariance axioms and functional form restrictions in structural models," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 85-95.
    4. Steven Brams & Peter Fishburn, 2005. "Going from theory to practice: the mixed success of approval voting," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 25(2), pages 457-474, December.
    5. Mostapha Diss & Eric Kamwa & Abdelmonaim Tlidi, 2020. "On Some k -scoring Rules for Committee Elections: Agreement and Condorcet Principle," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 130(5), pages 699-725.
    6. Joe, Harry, 2002. "Stochastic orderings in random utility models," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 391-404, July.
    7. Steven J. Brams & Peter C. Fishburn, 2001. "A nail-biting election," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 18(3), pages 409-414.
    8. Bartels, Knut & Boztuæg, Yasemin & Müller, Marlene, 1999. "Testing the multinomial logit model," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1999,19, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    9. Salvatore Barbaro & Nils D. Steiner, 2022. "Majority principle and indeterminacy in German elections," Working Papers 2202, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    10. Adrian Deemen, 2014. "On the empirical relevance of Condorcet’s paradox," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 311-330, March.
    11. McCAUSLAND, William J., 2004. "A Theory of Random Consumer Demand," Cahiers de recherche 08-2004, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    12. Dan Felsenthal & Nicolaus Tideman, 2014. "Weak Condorcet winner(s) revisited," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 313-326, September.
    13. Regenwetter, Michel & Grofman, Bernard & Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "On the model dependence of majority preference relations reconstructed from ballot or survey data," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 451-466, July.
    14. Richard Potthoff, 2011. "Condorcet Polling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 67-86, July.
    15. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, Ch. & Skourtos, M. & Damigos, D., 2014. "Planning globally, protesting locally: Patterns in community perceptions towards the installation of wind farms," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 170-177.
    16. George Tsebelis, 2018. "How Can We Keep Direct Democracy and Avoid “Kolotoumba”," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 81-90, June.
    17. John K. Dagsvik & Zhiyang Jia, 2008. "An Alternative Approach to Labor Supply Modeling. Emphasizing Job-type as Choice Variable," Discussion Papers 550, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    18. Tigran Melkonyan & Zvi Safra, 2016. "Intrinsic Variability in Group and Individual Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(9), pages 2651-2667, September.
    19. Onur Doğan & Ayça Giritligil, 2014. "Implementing the Borda outcome via truncated scoring rules: a computational study," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 83-98, April.
    20. Fridah Chepchirchir & Beatrice W. Muriithi & Jackson Langat & Samira A. Mohamed & Shepard Ndlela & Fathiya M. Khamis, 2021. "Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices on Tomato Leaf Miner, Tuta absoluta on Tomato and Potential Demand for Integrated Pest Management among Smallholder Farmers in Kenya and Uganda," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.

    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:metcap:v:2:y:2000:i:4:d:10.1023_a:1010058117460. 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.