IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/awi/wpaper/0688.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Independence of alternatives in ranking models

Author

Listed:
  • Lambrecht, Marco

Abstract

When Luce (1959) introduced his Choice Axiom, this raised immediate criticism by Debreu (1960), pointing out inconsistencies when items are ranked from inferior to superior (instead of ranking them from superior to inferior). As recently shown by Breitmoser (2019), Luce’s Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) is equivalent to Luce’s Choice Axiom when positivity holds. This fact seems to have escaped attention so far and might suggest that Debreu’s critique also applies to the notion of IIA, which is widely used in the literature. Furthermore, this notion could potentially be intuitively misleading, as the consequences of this axiom seem to be different than the name suggests. This might spill over to the intuitive interpretation of theoretical results that build on this axiom. This paper motivates the introduction of the notion of Independece of Alternatives (IoA) in the context of ranking models. IoA postulates a property of independence which seems intuitively reasonable (as it exactly captures what Luce himself describes when speaking about IIA), but does not exclusively hold in models where Luce’s Choice Axiom applies. Assuming IoA, expected ranks in the ranking of multiple alternatives can be determined from pairwise comparisons. The result holds in many models which do not satisfy IIA (e.g. certain Thurstone V models, Thurstone (1927)), can significantly simplify the calculation of expected ranks in practice and potentially facilitate analytic methods that build on more general approaches to model the ranking of multiple alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Lambrecht, Marco, 2020. "Independence of alternatives in ranking models," Working Papers 0688, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:awi:wpaper:0688
    Note: This paper is part of http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/view/schriftenreihen/sr-3.html
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bsz:16-heidok-288499
    File Function: Frontdoor page on HeiDOK
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/28849/2/Lambrecht_2020_dp688.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    2. Faruk Gul & Paulo Natenzon & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2014. "Random Choice as Behavioral Optimization," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1873-1912, September.
    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. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel A. Ballester, 2016. "Stochastic representatitve agent," Economics Working Papers 1536, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    2. Aguiar, Victor H. & Boccardi, Maria Jose & Dean, Mark, 2016. "Satisficing and stochastic choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 445-482.
    3. Francesco Cerigioni & Simone Galperti, 2021. "Listing specs: The effect of framing attributes on choice," Economics Working Papers 1775, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    4. Jose Apesteguia & Miguel Angel Ballester, 2014. "Discrete Choice Estimation of Time Preferences," Working Papers 787, Barcelona School of Economics.
    5. Matias D. Cattaneo & Xinwei Ma & Yusufcan Masatlioglu & Elchin Suleymanov, 2020. "A Random Attention Model," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(7), pages 2796-2836.
    6. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2013. "Imperfect Attention and Menu Evaluations," SIRE Discussion Papers 2013-98, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    7. Roy Allen & John Rehbeck, 2023. "Revealed stochastic choice with attributes," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 75(1), pages 91-112, January.
    8. Efe A. Ok & Gerelt Tserenjigmid, 2023. "Measuring Stochastic Rationality," Papers 2303.08202, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    9. Heydari, Pedram, 2021. "Luce arbitrates: Stochastic resolution of inner conflicts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 33-74.
    10. Demirkan, Yusufcan & Kimya, Mert, 2020. "Hazard rate, stochastic choice and consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 142-150.
    11. Duffy, Sean & Gussman, Steven & Smith, John, 2021. "Visual judgments of length in the economics laboratory: Are there brains in stochastic choice?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    12. Echenique, Federico & Saito, Kota & Tserenjigmid, Gerelt, 2018. "The perception-adjusted Luce model," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 67-76.
    13. Victor H. Aguiar & Maria Jose Boccardi & Nail Kashaev & Jeongbin Kim, 2023. "Random utility and limited consideration," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(1), pages 71-116, January.
    14. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2018. "Dual random utility maximisation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 162-182.
    15. Yegane, Ece, 2022. "Stochastic choice with limited memory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    16. Federico Echenique & Kota Saito, 2019. "General Luce model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 811-826, November.
    17. Breitmoser, Yves, 2017. "Discrete Choice with Presentation Effects," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 35, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    18. Dongwoo Lee & Hans Haller, 2022. "Selective attribute rules," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 229-254, December.
    19. Faro, José Heleno, 2023. "The Luce model with replicas," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    20. Chew, Soo Hong & Miao, Bin & Shen, Qiang & Zhong, Songfa, 2022. "Multiple-switching behavior in choice-list elicitation of risk preference," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ranking models; IIA; IoA; Luce’s Choice Axiom; Thurstone V;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:awi:wpaper:0688. 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: Gabi Rauscher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/awheide.html .

    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.