, Volume 66, Issue 2, pp 197–212 | Cite as

On rankings and top choices in random utility models with dependent utilities

  • Félix Belzunce
  • Eva-María Ortega
  • Franco Pellerey
  • José M. Ruiz


Different aggregate preference orders based on rankings and top choices have been defined in the literature to describe preferences among items in a fixed set of alternatives. A useful tool in this framework is constituted by random utility models, where the utility of each alternative, or object, is represented by a random variable, indexed by the object, which, for example, can capture the variability of preferences over a population. Applications are derived in diverse research fields, including computer science, management science and reliability. Recently, some stochastic ordering conditions have been provided for comparing alternatives by means of some aggregate preference orders in the case of independent random utility variables by Joe (Math Soc Sci 43:391–404, 2002). In this paper we provide new conditions, based on some joint stochastic orderings, for aggregate preference orders among the alternatives in the case of dependent random utilities. We also provide some examples of application in different research fields.


Arrangement increasing density Multivariate joint stochastic order Aggregate preference order Ranking Random utility model 

Mathematical Subject Classification (2000)

60E15 62P05 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agustin MA, Peña EA (1999) A dynamic competing risks model. Probab Eng Inf Sci 13:333–358MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleskerov F, Monjardet B (2002) Utility maximization, choice and preference. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyersmann J, Janssen A, Mayer C-D (2004) Efficient rank tests for semiparametric competing risk models. Metrika 60:73–91MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Block HW, Chetry D, Fang Z, Sampson AR (1990) Partial orders on permutation and dependence orderings on bivariate empirical distributions. Ann Stat 18:1840–1850MATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown M, Solomon H (1973) Optimal issuing policies under stochastic field lives. J Appl Prob 10:761–768CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Colonius H (1992) Complete consensus and order independence: relating ranking and choice. In: Fligner MA, Verducci JS (eds) Probability models and statistical analyses for ranking data. Lecture notes in statistics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 37–52Google Scholar
  7. Crowder M (2001) Classical competing risks. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Darkiewicz G, Dhaene J, Goovaerts M (2004) Risk measures and dependencies of risks. Working paper, Faculty of Economics and Applied Economics. Katholieke universiteit, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  9. Fenton NE, Pfleeger SL (1997) Software metrics. A rigorous and practical approach. PWS Publisher, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Fishburn PC (2002) Stochastic utility. In: Barberá S, Hammond PJ, Seidl C (eds). Handbook of utility theory, vol 1. Kluwer, Boston, pp 275–319Google Scholar
  11. Fligner MA, Verducci JS (1988) Multi-stage ranking models. J Am Stat Assoc 83:892–901MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Fligner MA, Verducci JS (1992) Probability models and statistical analyses for ranking data. Lecture notes in statistics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawas YE (2004) Development and calibration of route choice utility models: factorial experimental design approach. J Transp Eng 130:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hazell PL, Tarren-Sweeney M, Vimpani GM, Keatinge D, Callan K (2002) Children with disruptive behaviours: II Clinical and community service needs. J Pediatr Child Health 38:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hollander M, Proschan F, Sethuraman J (1977) Functions decreasing in transposition and their applications in ranking problems. Ann Stat 5:722–733MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Jackson JR (1963) Jobshop-like queueing systems. Manag Sci 10:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joe H (2000) Inequalities for random utility models, with applications to ranking and subset choice data. Method Comp Appl Probab 2:359–372MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Joe H (2002) Stochastic orderings in random utility models. Math Soc Sci 43:391–404MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Joe H, Verducci JS (1992) On the Babington-Smith class of models for rankings. In: Fligner MA, Verducci JS (eds). Probability models and statistical analyses for ranking data, lecture notes in statistics. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 37–52Google Scholar
  20. Marshall AW, Olkin I (1979) Inequalities: theory of majorization and its applications. Academic, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Müller A, Stoyan D (2002) Comparison methods for stochastic models and risks. Wiley, ChichesterMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Pecaric JE, Proschan F, Tong YL (1992) Convex functions, partial orderings and statistical applications. Academic, San DiegoMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Ross SM (2002) Probability models for computer science. Academic, HarcourtGoogle Scholar
  24. Shaked M, Shanthikumar JG (1994) Stochastic orders and their applications. Academic, San DiegoMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Shanthikumar JG, Yao DD (1991) Bivariate characterizations of some stochastic order relations. Adv Appl Prob 23:642–659MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. Singh H, Misra NJ (1994) On redundancy allocation in systems. J Appl Prob 31:1004–1014MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Félix Belzunce
    • 1
  • Eva-María Ortega
    • 2
  • Franco Pellerey
    • 3
  • José M. Ruiz
    • 1
  1. 1.Dpto. Estadística e Investigación Operativa, Facultad de MatemáticasUniversidad de MurciaEspinardo (Murcia)Spain
  2. 2.Centro de Investigación OperativaUniversidad Miguel HernándezOrihuela (Alicante)Spain
  3. 3.Dipartimento di MatematicaPolitecnico di TorinoTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations