Abstract
Several probabilistic models for subset choice have been proposed in the literature, for example, to explain approval voting data. We show that Marley et al.'s latent scale model is subsumed by Falmagne and Regenwetter's size-independent model, in the sense that every choice probability distribution generated by the former can also be explained by the latter. Our proof relies on the construction of a probabilistic ranking model which we label the “repeated insertion model.” This model is a special case of Marden's orthogonal contrast model class and, in turn, includes the classical Mallows φ-model as a special case. We explore its basic properties as well as its relationship to Fligner and Verducci's multistage ranking model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ahn, H. (1995). Nonparametric 2-stage estimation of conditional choice probabilities in a binary choice model under uncertainty.Journal of Econometrics, 67, 337–378.
Atkinson, D., Wampold, B., Lowe, S., Matthews, L., & Ahn, H. (1998). Asian American preferences for counselor characteristics: Application of the Bradley-Terry-Luce model to paired comparison data.Counseling Psychologist, 26, 101–123.
Babington Smith, B. (1950). Discussion on Professor Ross's paper.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 12, 153–162.
Baier, D., & Gaul, W. (1999). Optimal product positioning based on paired comparison data.Journal of Econometrics, 89, 365–392.
Baltas, G., & Doyle, P. (2001). Random utility models in marketing research: A survey.Journal of Business Research, 51, 115–125.
Barberá, S., & Pattanaik, P.K. (1986). Falmagne and the rationalizability of stochastic choices in terms of random orderings.Econometrica, 54, 707–715.
Billot, A., & Thisse, J. (1999). A discrete choice model when context matters.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43, 518–538.
Block, H.D., & Marschak, J. (1960). Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. In Olkin, I., Ghurye, S., Hoeffding, H., Madow, W., and Mann, H., editors,Contributions to Probability and Statistics, pp. 97–132. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Böckenholt, U., & Dillon, W. (1997). Modeling within-subject dependencies in ordinal paired comparison data.Psychometrika, 62, 411–434.
Chen, Z., & Kuo, L. (2001). A note on the estimation of the multinomial logit model with random effects.American Statistician, 55, 89–95.
Courcoux, P., & Semenou, M. (1997). Preference data analysis using a paired comparison model.Food Quality and Preference, 8, 353–358.
Critchlow, D.E., Fligner, M.A., & Verducci, J.S. (1991). Probability models on rankings.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35, 294–318.
Critchlow, D.E., Fligner, M.A., & Verducci, J.S., eds (1993).Probability Models and Statistical Analyses for Ranking Data. New York: Springer.
Doignon, J.-P., & Fiorini, S. (2003). The approval-voting polytope: Combinatorial interpretation of the facets.Mathématiques, Informatique et Sciences Humaines, 161 29–39.
Doignon, J.-P., & Fiorini, S. (in press). The facets and the symmetries of the approval-voting polytope.Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B.
Doignon, J.-P., & Regenwetter, M. (1997). An approval-voting polytope for linear orders.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 171–188.
Doignon, J.-P., & Regenwetter, M. (2002). On the combinatorial structure of the approval voting polytope.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 554–563.
Falmagne, J.-C. (1978). A representation theorem for finite random scale systems.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18, 52–72.
Falmagne, J.-C., & Regenwetter, M. (1996). Random utility models for approval voting.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 40, 152–159.
Fishburn, P. (2001). Signed orders, choice probabilities, and linear polytopes.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 53–80.
Fligner, M.A., & Verducci, J.S. (1988). Multi-stage ranking models.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 892–901.
Huang, J., & Nychka, D. (2000). A nonparametric multiple choice method within the random utility framework.Journal of Econometrics, 97, 207–225.
Ichimura, H., & Thompson, T.S. (1998). Maximum likelihood estimation of a binary choice model with random coefficients of unknown distribution.Journal of Econometrics, 86, 269–295.
Knuth, D.E. (1998).The Art of Computer Programming, (vol. 3: Sorting and Searching, 2nd printing). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Koppen, M. (1995). Random utility representation of binary choice probabilities: Critical graphs yielding critical necessary conditions.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 21–39.
Lewbel, A. (2000). Semiparametric qualitative response model estimation with unknown heteroscedasticity or instrumental variables.Journal of Econometrics, 97, 145–177.
Mallows, C.L. (1957). Non-null ranking models I.Biometrika, 44, 114–130.
Marden, J. (1992). Use of nested orthogonal contrasts in analyzing rank data.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87, 307–318.
Marden, J.I. (1995).Analyzing and Modeling Rank Data. London: Chapman & Hall.
Marley, A.A.J. (1993). Aggregation theorems and the combination of probabilistic rank orders. In Critchlow, D. E., Fligner, M. A., and Verducci, J.S., eds,Probability Models and Statistical Analyses for Ranking Data, pp. 216–240. New York: Springer.
McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response.Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, 447–470.
Norpoth, H. (1979). The parties come to order! Dimensions of preferential choice in the West German Electorate, 1961–1976.The American Political Science Review, 73, 724–736.
Peterson, G., & Brown, T. (1998). Economic valuation by the method of paired comparison, with emphasis on evaluation of the transitivity axiom.Land Economics, 74, 240–261.
Regenwetter, M., & Doignon, J.-P. (1998). The choice probabilities of the latent-scale model satisfy the size-independent model whenn is small.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 102–106.
Regenwetter, M., Marley, A., & Joe, H. (1998). Random utility threshold models of subset choice.Australian Journal of Psychology: Special issue on mathematical psychology, 50, 175–185.
Tsai, R. (2000). Remarks on the identifiability of Thurstonian ranking models: Case V, case III, or neither?Psychometrika, 65, 233–240.
Zeng, L. (2000). A heteroscedastic generalized extreme value discrete choice model.Sociological Methods & Research, 29, 118–144.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors are grateful to the National Science Foundation for grants SES98-18756 to Regenwetter and Pekeč, and SBR97-30076 to Regenwetter. This collaborative research was carried out in the context of the conference Random Utility 2000 held at Duke University and sponsored by NSF, the Fuqua School of Business and the Center for International Business Education and Research. We thank the editor and four referees for helpful suggestions and we are grateful to Prof. J. I. Marden for providing useful information on contrast models. We thank Moon-Ho Ho for programming and running the data analyses.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Doignon, JP., Pekeč, A. & Regenwetter, M. The repeated insertion model for rankings: Missing link between two subset choice models. Psychometrika 69, 33–54 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295838
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02295838