The repeated insertion model for rankings: Missing link between two subset choice models

Psychometrika

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 33-54

  Doignon, Jean Paul ^a   Pekeč, Aleksandar ^b   Regenwetter, Michel ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Approval voting; Probabilistic choice models; Probabilistic ranking models; Subset choice

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442707368     PISSN: 00333123     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02295838     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ahn, H. (1995). Nonparametric 2-stage estimation of conditional choice probabilities in a binary choice model under uncertainty. Journal of Econometrics, 337-378.
2. 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.
3. Babington Smith, B. (1950). Discussion on Professor Ross's paper. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 12, 153-162.
4. Baier, D., & Gaul, W. (1999). Optimal product positioning based on paired comparison data. Journal of Econometrics, 89, 365-392.
5. Baltas, G., & Doyle, P. (2001). Random utility models in marketing research: A survey. Journal of Business Research, 51, 115-125.
6. Barberá, S., & Pattanaik, P.K. (1986). Falmagne and the rationalizability of stochastic choices in terms of random orderings. Econometrica, 54, 707-715.
7. Billot, A., & Thisse, J. (1999). A discrete choice model when context matters. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43, 518-538.
8. 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.
9. Böckenholt, U., & Dillon, W. (1997). Modeling within-subject dependencies in ordinal paired comparison data. Psychometrika, 62, 411-434.
10. Chen, Z., & Kuo, L. (2001). A note on the estimation of the multinomial logit model with random effects. American Statistician, 55, 89-95.
11. Courcoux, P., & Semenou, M. (1997). Preference data analysis using a paired comparison model. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 353-358.
12. Critchlow, D.E., Fligner, M.A., & Verducci, J.S. (1991). Probability models on rankings. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35, 294-318.
13. Critchlow, D.E., Fligner, M.A., & Verducci, J.S., eds (1993). Probability Models and Statistical Analyses for Ranking Data. New York: Springer.
14. Doignon, J.-P., & Fiorini, S. (2003). The approval-voting polytope: Combinatorial interpretation of the facets. Mathématiques, Informatique et Sciences Humaines, 16129-39.
15. Doignon, J.-P., & Fiorini, S. (in press). The facets and the symmetries of the approval-voting polytope. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B.
16. Doignon, J.-P., & Regenwetter, M. (1997). An approval-voting polytope for linear orders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology? 41, 171-188.
17. Doignon, J.-P., & Regenwetter, M. (2002). On the combinatorial structure of the approval voting polytope. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 554-563.
18. Falmagne, J.-C. (1978). A representation theorem for finite random scale systems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18, 52-72.
19. Falmagne, J.-C., & Regenwetter, M. (1996). Random utility models for approval voting. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 40, 152-159.
20. Fishburn, P. (2001). Signed orders, choice probabilities, and linear polytopes. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 53-80.
21. Fligner, M.A., & Verducci, J.S. (1988). Multi-stage ranking models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 892-901.
22. Huang, J., & Nychka, D. (2000). A nonparametric multiple choice method within the random utility framework. Journal of Econometrics, 97, 207-225.
23. 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.
24. Knuth, D.E. (1998). The Art of Computer Programming, (vol. 3: Sorting and Searching, 2nd printing). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
25. Koppen, M. (1995). Random utility representation of binary choice probabilities: Critical graphs yielding critical necessary conditions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 21-39.
26. Lewbel, A. (2000). Semiparametric qualitative response model estimation with unknown heteroscedasticity or instrumental variables. Journal of Econometrics, 97, 145-177.
27. Mallows, C.L. (1957). Non-null ranking models I. Biometrika, 44, 114-130.
28. Marden, J. (1992). Use of nested orthogonal contrasts in analyzing rank data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87, 307-318.
29. Marden, J.I. (1995). Analyzing and Modeling Rank Data. London: Chapman & Hall.
30. 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.
31. McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15, 447-470.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Regenwetter, M., & Doignon, J.-P. (1998). The choice probabilities of the latent-scale model satisfy the size-independent model when n is small. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 102-106.
35. 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.
36. Tsai, R. (2000). Remarks on the identifiability of Thurstonian ranking models: Case V, case III, or neither? Psychometrika, 65, 233-240.
37. Zeng, L. (2000). A heteroscedastic generalized extreme value discrete choice model. Sociological Methods & Research, 29, 118-144.