Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
139 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

When the Universe is Too Big: Bounding Consideration Probabilities for Plackett-Luce Rankings (2401.11016v2)

Published 19 Jan 2024 in cs.LG, cs.MA, and econ.EM

Abstract: The widely used Plackett-Luce ranking model assumes that individuals rank items by making repeated choices from a universe of items. But in many cases the universe is too big for people to plausibly consider all options. In the choice literature, this issue has been addressed by supposing that individuals first sample a small consideration set and then choose among the considered items. However, inferring unobserved consideration sets (or item consideration probabilities) in this "consider then choose" setting poses significant challenges, because even simple models of consideration with strong independence assumptions are not identifiable, even if item utilities are known. We apply the consider-then-choose framework to top-$k$ rankings, where we assume rankings are constructed according to a Plackett-Luce model after sampling a consideration set. While item consideration probabilities remain non-identified in this setting, we prove that we can infer bounds on the relative values of consideration probabilities. Additionally, given a condition on the expected consideration set size and known item utilities, we derive absolute upper and lower bounds on item consideration probabilities. We also provide algorithms to tighten those bounds on consideration probabilities by propagating inferred constraints. Thus, we show that we can learn useful information about consideration probabilities despite not being able to identify them precisely. We demonstrate our methods on a ranking dataset from a psychology experiment with two different ranking tasks (one with fixed consideration sets and one with unknown consideration sets). This combination of data allows us to estimate utilities and then learn about unknown consideration probabilities using our bounds.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (40)
  1. Jason Abaluck and Abi Adams-Prassl. 2021. What do consumers consider before they choose? Identification from asymmetric demand responses. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 136, 3 (2021), 1611–1663.
  2. The transitive reduction of a directed graph. SIAM J. Comput. 1, 2 (1972), 131–137.
  3. Mayer Alvo and Philip Yu. 2014. Statistical Methods for Ranking Data. Springer.
  4. Gözen Başar and Chandra Bhat. 2004. A parameterized consideration set model for airport choice: an application to the San Francisco Bay area. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 38, 10 (2004), 889–904.
  5. Assessing the potential demand for electric cars. Journal of Econometrics 17, 1 (1981), 1–19.
  6. Moshe Ben-Akiva and Bruno Boccara. 1995. Discrete choice models with latent choice sets. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12, 1 (1995), 9–24.
  7. Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E Terry. 1952. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39, 3/4 (1952), 324–345.
  8. John Brown (Ed.). 1976. Recall and recognition. John Wiley & Sons.
  9. A random attention model. Journal of Political Economy 128, 7 (2020), 2796–2836.
  10. Pradeep K Chintagunta and Harikesh S Nair. 2011. Discrete-choice models of consumer demand in marketing. Marketing Science 30, 6 (2011), 977–996.
  11. Morgan Cutolo. 2023. The U.S. State Everyone Forgets When Listing All 50. https://www.rd.com/article/most-forgotten-us-state/ Accessed 10/9/2023.
  12. Online discrete choice models: Applications in personalized recommendations. Decision Support Systems 119 (2019), 35–45.
  13. A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities. Journal of Applied Econometrics 27, 5 (2012), 831–846.
  14. Identifying consumer consideration set at the purchase time from aggregate purchase data in online retailing. Decision Support Systems 53, 3 (2012), 625–633.
  15. John Guiver and Edward Snelson. 2009. Bayesian inference for Plackett-Luce ranking models. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 377–384.
  16. John R Hauser and Birger Wernerfelt. 1990. An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research 16, 4 (1990), 393–408.
  17. Jerry A Hausman and Paul A Ruud. 1987. Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. Journal of Econometrics 34, 1-2 (1987), 83–104.
  18. Improving behavioral realism in hybrid energy-economy models using discrete choice studies of personal transportation decisions. Energy Economics 27, 1 (2005), 59–77.
  19. Demand estimation under uncertain consideration sets. Operations Research (2023).
  20. Learning plackett-luce mixtures from partial preferences. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 4328–4335.
  21. R Duncan Luce. 1959. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Wiley.
  22. Charles F Manski. 1977. The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision 8, 3 (1977), 229.
  23. Paola Manzini and Marco Mariotti. 2014. Stochastic choice and consideration sets. Econometrica 82, 3 (2014), 1153–1176.
  24. Lucas Maystre and Matthias Grossglauser. 2015. Fast and accurate inference of Plackett–Luce models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28 (2015).
  25. Daniel McFadden. 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, Paul Zarembka (Ed.). 105–142.
  26. Michael Mitzenmacher and Eli Upfal. 2017. Probability and Computing: Randomization and Probabilistic Techniques in Algorithms and Data Analysis (second ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  27. Wendy W Moe. 2006. An empirical two-stage choice model with varying decision rules applied to internet clickstream data. Journal of Marketing Research 43, 4 (2006), 680–692.
  28. Marco A Palma. 2017. Improving the prediction of ranking data. Empirical Economics 53 (2017), 1681–1710.
  29. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32 (2019).
  30. Robin L Plackett. 1975. The analysis of permutations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics 24, 2 (1975), 193–202.
  31. Collective narcissism: Americans exaggerate the role of their home state in appraising US history. Psychological Science 29, 9 (2018), 1414–1422.
  32. John H Roberts and James M Lattin. 1991. Development and testing of a model of consideration set composition. Journal of Marketing Research 28, 4 (1991), 429–440.
  33. Learning rich rankings. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 9435–9446.
  34. Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions. Marketing Letters 2 (1991), 181–197.
  35. Herbert A Simon. 1957. Models of Man: Social and Rational. Wiley.
  36. Jung-Chae Suh. 2009. The role of consideration sets in brand choice: The moderating role of product characteristics. Psychology & Marketing 26, 6 (2009), 534–550.
  37. Paul W Thurner. 2000. The empirical application of the spatial theory of voting in multiparty systems with random utility models. Electoral Studies 19, 4 (2000), 493–517.
  38. Kenneth E Train. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press.
  39. Retrieving Unobserved Consideration Sets from Household Panel Data. Journal of Marketing Research 47, 1 (2010), 63–74.
  40. Learning mixtures of Plackett-Luce models. In International Conference on Machine Learning. 2906–2914.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com