Abstract

A geometric approach is introduced to explain phenomena that can arise with Luce's choice axiom; e.g., differences occur when determining the likelihood of a ranking by starting with the “best-first,” or “worst-first” alternative. As shown, the problem is caused by the way we compute pairwise probabilities: it forces “best-first” and “worst-first” computations to use different information from a profile. Thus agreement holds only should the different information agree: this happens only with complete indifference. An alternative “best-first” and “worst-first” comparison, which always holds, is developed. Ways to increase the applicability of the choice axiom are introduced; e.g., profiles admitted by Luce's formulation for ten alternatives have nine degrees of freedom; the approach described here allows millions of degrees of freedom. New ways to compute probabilities, which combine “best-first” and “worst-first” computations, are given: their properties are identified with a profile decomposition. A new way to compute pairwise probabilities, which eliminates all profile restrictions and problems associated with the choice axiom, is introduced; e.g., “best-first” and “worst-first” computations now agree. Three and four alternatives are emphasized for reasons of exposition, but most results extend to any number of alternatives.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call