The Limits of Identification in Discrete Choice
Abstract: This paper uncovers tight bounds on the number of preferences permissible in identified random utility models. We show that as the number of alternatives in a discrete choice model becomes large, the fraction of preferences admissible in an identified model rapidly tends to zero. We propose a novel sufficient condition ensuring identification, which is strictly weaker than some of those existing in the literature. While this sufficient condition reaches our upper bound, an example demonstrates that this condition is not necessary for identification. Using our new condition, we show that the classic ``Latin Square" example from social choice theory is identified from stochastic choice data.
- Apesteguia, J., M. A. Ballester, and J. Lu (2017): “Single-Crossing Random Utility Models,” Econometrica, 85, 661–674.
- Azrieli, Y. and J. Rehbeck (2022): “Marginal stochastic choice,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.08492.
- Barberá, S. and P. K. Pattanaik (1986): “Falmagne and the Rationalizability of Stochastic Choices in Terms of Random Orderings,” Econometrica, 54, 707–715.
- Block, H. D. and J. Marschak (1959): “Random Orderings and Stochastic Theories of Response,” Tech. rep., Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Chambers, C. P., Y. Masatlioglu, and C. Turansick (Forthcoming): “Correlated Choice,” Theoretical Economics.
- Chang, H., Y. Narita, and K. Saito (2022): “Approximating Choice Data by Discrete Choice Models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01882.
- Dardanoni, V., P. Manzini, M. Mariotti, and C. J. Tyson (2020): “Inferring cognitive heterogeneity from aggregate choices,” Econometrica, 88, 1269–1296.
- Dogan, S. and K. Yildiz (2022): “Every choice function is pro-con rationalizable,” Operations Research.
- Falmagne, J.-C. (1978): “A Representation Theorem for Finite Random Scale Systems,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 18, 52–72.
- Fiorini, S. (2004): “A Short Proof of a Theorem of Falmagne,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 48, 80–82.
- Fishburn, P. C. (1998): “Stochastic Utility,” in Handbook of Utility Theory, ed. by S. Barbera, P. Hammond, and C. Seidl, Kluwer Dordrecht, 273–318.
- Gul, F. and W. Pesendorfer (2006): “Random expected utility,” Econometrica, 74, 121–146.
- Kashaev, N., M. Plávala, and V. H. Aguiar (2024): “Entangled vs. Separable Choice,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09045.
- Kono, H., K. Saito, and A. Sandroni (2023): “Axiomatization of Random Utility Model with Unobservable Alternatives,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03913.
- Lu, J. (2019): “Bayesian identification: a theory for state-dependent utilities,” American Economic Review, 109, 3192–3228.
- Rota, G.-C. (1964): “On the Foundations of Combinatorial Theory I. Theory of Möbius Functions,” Zeitschrift für Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete, 2, 340–368.
- Saito, K. (2018): “Axiomatization of the Mixed Logit Model,” .
- Turansick, C. (2022): “Identification in the random utility model,” Journal of Economic Theory, 203, 105489.
- Yildiz, K. (2023): “Foundations of self-progressive choice models,” .
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.