Abstract
This paper discusses random utility representations of the Luce model (Luce, Individual choice behavior: a theoretical analysis, 1959). Earlier works, such as McFadden (Frontier in econometrics, 1973), Yellott (J Math Psychol 15:109–144, 1977), and Strauss (J Math Psychol 20:35–52, 1979) have discussed random utility representations under the assumption that utilities are additively (or multiplicatively) separable in a deterministic and a random part. Under various conditions, they have established that a separable and independent random utility representation exists if and only if the random terms are type III (type I) extreme value distributed. This paper analyzes independent random utility representations without the separability condition and with an infinite universal set of alternatives. Under these assumptions, it turns out that the most general random utility representation of the Luce model is a utility function that is an arbitrary strictly increasing transformation of a separable utility function (additive or multiplicative) with extreme value distributed random terms.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The representation of probabilistic models of choice behavior by random utility functions has a long history. One of the early pioneers was Thurstone (1927) who proposed a Probit type model based on normally distributed utilities. In contrast, the theory of Luce (1959) was derived from his Choice Axiom (equivalent to IIA) without reference to an underlying random utility interpretation. Subsequently, Holman and Marley (see Luce and Suppes 1965, p. 338, footnote 7), showed that the Luce model can also be interpreted as a random utility model derived from extreme value distributed random utilities. McFadden (1973), Yellott (1977), and Strauss (1979) have investigated the following identification problem related to the Luce model, namely if there are distributions of the utilities other than the extreme value distributions that yield the Luce model. It turns out that under the assumptions of additively (or multiplicatively) separable utility functions in a deterministic part and a random part, the answer negative, provided the utilities are independent. To this end, the most general results have been obtained by Yellott (1977) and Strauss (1979). Strauss (1979) has also obtained some results for the case where the random parts of the utility function are not necessarily independent across alternatives.
Related works are Falmagne (1978), Strauss (1979), Colonius (1984), Monderer (1992), Barberà and Pattanaik (1986), and Fiorini (2004) who have discussed necessary and sufficient conditions on systems of choice probabilities so as to be consistent with a random utility representation. Dagsvik (1994, 1995) showed that any random utility model can be approximated arbitrarily closely by Generalized Extreme Value models.
In this paper, we consider another extension: we maintain the assumptions of the utilities being independent across alternatives but abandon the assumption of separability. Under these assumptions, and with infinite universal set of alternatives, it turns out that the most general random utility representation of the Luce model is a utility function that is an arbitrary strictly increasing transformation of a separable utility function (additive of multiplicative) with extreme value random component.
2 The luce model and non-separable random utility representations
Let \(S\) denote the set of integers and consider a family of random utility models with utilities, \(U_j , j\in S\), with the following properties. The utilities \(U_j \) and \(U_k \) are independent for \(j\ne k\). To alternative \(j\) there is associated a positive scale \(w_j \) such that \(P(U_j \le u)=F_{w_j } (u),\, u>0\), where \(F_w (u)\) is a c.d.f. defined on \((0,\infty )\) for given w belonging to a some set. The scale \(\{w_j ,j\in S\}\) represents the deterministic parts of the preference representation. In empirical applications, it will typically be specified as a parametric function of individual characteristics and alternative-specific attributes.
Let \(C\) be a finite subset of \(S\). Then the random utility model is a Luce model whenever
The special case where \(F_{w_j } (u)=\exp (-w_j /u)\) corresponds to the multiplicative random utility representation, \(U_j =w_j \varepsilon _j \) where \(\varepsilon _j\) has type I extreme value c.d.f. \(\exp (-1/u)\). The multiplicative representation is equivalent to the additive representation \(\tilde{U}_j =v_j +\eta _j\) where \(\tilde{U}_j =\log U_j , \quad v_j =\log w_j \) and \(\eta _j =\log \varepsilon _j \). It follows readily that \(\eta _j\) has type III extreme value c.d.f. \(\exp (-\exp (-u))\). It is well known that the latter specification implies (1), see for example McFadden (1973).Footnote 1
Theorem 1
Assume a random utility model with independent utilities \(U_j ,j\in S\), where \(P(U_j \le u)=F_{w_j } (u)\) for each given \(w_j \in A\) where A is a set containing at least two positive real numbers. Furthermore, assume that \(F_w (u)\) is strictly monotone and continuously differentiable in \(u\in (0,\infty )\). Then (1) holds for any selection \(\{w_j \in A,j\in S\}\) if and only if \(U_j \) has the same distribution as \(H(w_j \varepsilon _j )\) where H is an arbitrary strictly increasing mapping from \((0,\infty )\) to some suitable set and \(\varepsilon _j ,j\in S\), are independent extreme value distributed random variable with c.d.f. \(\exp (-1/u), u>0\).
Proof
Consider first the “if” part. Then the utility representation \(\{H(w_j \varepsilon _j )\}\) is equivalent to the multiplicative representation \(\{w_j \varepsilon _j \}\) because \(H\) is strictly increasing. Moreover, the latter one is equivalent to the additive representation \(\{\log w_j +\log \varepsilon _j \}\). If \(\varepsilon _j \) has c.d.f. \(\exp (-1/u)\) it follows readily that \(\log \varepsilon _j \) has c.d.f. \(\exp (-\exp (-u))\). Consequently, the Luce choice model follows from well-known results, see for example McFadden (1973).
Consider next the “only if” part. Let \(C=\{1,2,\ldots ,m+1\}\) where \(m\) is any integer. The corresponding choice probability of selecting alternative j can then be expressed as
With no loss of generality assume that \(1\in A\). Consider the special case with \(w_1 =w\) and \(w_k =1\), for \(k = 2, 3,\ldots , m+1\). Then the choice probability \(P_C (1)\) reduces to
Since \(F_1 (u)\) is strictly increasing and continuously differentiable it follows that it is invertible and the inverse is also continuously differentiable. By change of variable; \(y=F_1 (u), dy={F}{^\prime }_1 (u)du\), the integral in (3) transforms to
where \(\psi _w (y)=F_w (F_1 ^{-1}(y))\), which is for each given \(w\) a c.d.f. defined on [0,1]. The equation in (4) must hold for all \(m = 1, 2,\ldots \). The equation in (4) corresponds to Hausdorff’s moment problem (see Feller 1971 vol. II, pp. 224–225). Specifically, Hausdorff has proved that \(\psi _w\) is uniquely determined provided (4) holds for every integer \(m\). Note next that \(\psi _w (y)=y^{w}\) is a solution to (4). Hence, \(\psi _w (y)=y^{w}\) is the only possible solution.Footnote 2 Thus, one must have \(F_w (F_1^{-1} (y))=y^{w}\), which yields \(F_w =F_1 ^{w}\).
Next, define \(H^{-1}(x)=-1/\log F_1 (x)\). Since \(F_1 (u)<1\) for finite \(u\) it follows that \(H^{-1}(x)\) is positive. Furthermore, it is easily verified that \(H^{-1}(x)\) is strictly increasing, which implies that also \(H(u)\) is strictly increasing. Thus, with \(\varepsilon _j \) distributed according to the c.d.f. \(\exp (-1/u), \, u>0\), we obtain that
which shows that \(U_j \) has the same distribution as \(H(w_j \varepsilon _j )\). This completes the proof of Theorem 1. \(\square \)
Notes
In a recent paper by Fosgerau and Bierlaire (2009), it is argued in their abstract that sometimes the multiplicative formulation may be a more plausible than the additive one because decision-makers may evaluate relative differences rather than absolute differences. However, since the utility concept in this context is ordinal the multiplicative and additive formulations are equivalent a priori (that is, before a functional form of the respective deterministic part of the utility functions have been chosen).
References
Barberà, S., & Pattanaik, P. K. (1986). Falmagne and the rationalizability of stochastic choices in terms of random orderings. Econometrica, 54, 707–715.
Colonius, H. (1984). Stochastische Theorien individuellen Wahlverhaltens. Berlin: Springer.
Dagsvik, J. K. (1994). Discrete and continuous choice, max-stable processes and independence from irrelevant attributes. Econometrica, 62, 1179–1205.
Dagsvik, J. K. (1995). How large is the class of generalized extreme value random utility models? Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 90–98.
Falmagne, J.-C. (1978). A representation theorem for finite random scale systems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18, 52–72.
Feller, W. (1971). An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Vol. II). New York: Wiley.
Fiorini, S. (2004). A short proof of a theorem of Falmagne. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 48, 80–82.
Fosgerau, M., & Bierlaire, M. (2009). Discrete choice models with multiplicative error terms. Transportation Research Part B, 43, 494–505.
Hausdorff, F. (1921a). Summationsmethoden und Momentfolgen. I. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 9, 74–109.
Hausdorff, F. (1921b). Summationsmethoden und Momentfolgen. II. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 9, 280–299.
Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility and subjective probability. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. III). New York: Wiley.
McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontier in Econometrics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.
Monderer, D. (1992). The stochastic choice problem: A game-theoretic approach. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36, 547–554.
Strauss, D. (1979). Some results on random utility models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 20, 35–52.
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psyhological Review, 34, 273–286.
Yellott, J. I. (1977). The relationship between Luce’s choice axiom, Thurstone’s theory of comparative judgment, and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 109–144.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful for comments by Tony Marley.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dagsvik, J.K. What independent random utility representations are equivalent to the IIA assumption?. Theory Decis 80, 495–499 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-014-9479-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-014-9479-3
Keywords
- Independent random utility models
- Independence from irrelevant alternatives
- Non-separable random utility representations