Random utility models and their applications: recent developments

This Special Issue of Mathematical Social Sciences contains articles stemming from participation by the various authors in Random Utility 2000: Conference and Workshop on Random Utility and Probabilistic Measurement Theory. This highly interdisciplinary Conference and Workshop was held at the Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, August 3–8, 2000.The meeting was organized by Michel Regenwetter and Aleksandar ˇ Pekec and funded by the National Science Foundation, as well as being supported by the Fuqua School of Business and the Center for International Business Education and Research at Duke. The Addendum includes a list of the main themes and speakers. The meeting reflected the variety of disciplines in which random utility plays a role. The participants discussed theoretical and applied random utility work and had backgrounds in disciplines as diverse as civil and environmental engineering, cognitive science, computer science, economics and resource economics, management science, marketing, mathematics, medical decision making, philosophy, political science, psychology and statistics. The meeting ended with a Discussion and Concluding Remarks led by A.A.J. Marley. Marley presented an integration of the material that had been presented and discussed. One result of that integration was the realization of the highly complex interactions between various theoretical and practical approaches in utility theory. A complementary source is the material presented and discussed at the UC B rkeley 2001 Invitational Choice Symposium (Monterey, June 1-5, 2001), which will be published in a Special Issue of Marketing Letters later this year (following the tradition of prior Symposia in that series). A number of researchers had the good fortune to attend both theConference and Workshop and theChoice Symposium. The relevant entries on Mathematics and Computer Sciences (Edited by Marley) that appear in the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences (Neil J. Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, Eds.) are also excellent sources for recent basic summaries of many topics in the Mathematical Social Sciences, including those discussed below.

[1]  Michel Regenwetter,et al.  Random relations, random utilities, and random functions , 2001 .

[2]  Regenwetter.  Random Utility Representations of Finite m-ary Relations , 1996, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[3]  Fuad Aleskerov,et al.  Binary representation of choice rationalizable by a utility function with an additive non-negative error function , 2002, Math. Soc. Sci..

[4]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  Foundations of probability with applications: Qualitative axioms for random-variable representation of extensive quantities , 1996 .

[5]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior , 1959 .

[6]  Suck.  A Qualitative Characterization of the Exponential Distribution. , 1998, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[7]  Louis Narens,et al.  Fifteen Problems Concerning the Representational Theory of Measurement , 1994 .

[8]  Jean-Paul Doignon,et al.  An Approval-Voting Polytope for Linear Orders , 1997, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[9]  D. McFadden.  Econometric analysis of qualitative response models , 1984 .

[10]  D. McFadden.  Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice , 1981 .

[11]  Jean-Paul Doignon,et al.  On the combinatorial structure of the approval-voting polytope , 2002 .

[12]  J. Weymark.  Aggregating Ordinal Probabilities on Finite Sets , 1997 .

[13]  John D. Hey,et al.  Which Error Story is Best? , 2000, Experiments in Economics.

[14]  John D. Hey,et al.  Stochastic choice with deterministic preferences: An experimental investigation , 1995 .

[15]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[16]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[17]  J. Dagsvik.  How large is the class of generalized extreme value random utility models , 1995 .

[18]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Induced binary probabilities and the linear ordering polytope: a status report , 1992 .

[19]  Suck.  A Dimension-Related Metric on the Lattice of Knowledge Spaces. , 1999, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[20]  An identity in arithmetic , 1959 .

[21]  J. Townsend,et al.  Multialternative Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic Connectionist Model of Decision Making , 2001 .

[22]  J. Hey,et al.  INVESTIGATING GENERALIZATIONS OF EXPECTED UTILITY THEORY USING EXPERIMENTAL DATA , 1994, Experiments in Economics.

[23]  Multivariate Extreme Value Distributions and Coverage of Ranking Probabilities. , 2001, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[24]  Fred S. Roberts,et al.  On the Meaningfulness of Optimal Solutions to Scheduling Problems: Can an Optimal Solution be Nonoptimal? , 1998, Oper. Res..

[25]  Reinhard Suck.  Geometric and combinatorial properties of the polytope of binary choice probabilities , 1992 .

[26]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Several unresolved conceptual problems of mathematical psychology , 1997 .

[27]  R. Luce,et al.  Thurstone and Sensory Scaling : Then and Now , 2004 .

[28]  Diederich,et al.  Dynamic Stochastic Models for Decision Making under Time Constraints , 1997, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[29]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. , 2001, Psychological review.

[30]  Samuel Fiorini,et al.  The facets and the symmetries of the approval-voting polytope , 2004, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B.

[31]  D. McFadden.  Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey , 1976 .

[32]  Jacob Marschak,et al.  Binary-Choice Constraints and Random Utility Indicators (1960) , 1974 .

[33]  John K. Dagsvik,et al.  Discrete and Continuous Choice, Max-Stable Processes, and Independence from Irrelevant Attributes , 1994 .

[34]  A. Pekec,et al.  The repeated insertion model for rankings: Missing link between two subset choice models , 2004 .

[35]  G. Lindzey.  A history of psychology in autobiography Vol. VIII. , 1989 .

[36]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Thurstone's discriminal processes fifty years later , 1977 .

[37]  R. Suck.  The Normal Distribution Derived from Qualitative Conditions. , 2001, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[38]  Juan Carlos Candeal,et al.  Numerical representability of semiorders , 2002, Math. Soc. Sci..

[39]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Subset Comparisons for Additive Linear Orders , 2002, Math. Oper. Res..

[40]  Patrick Suppes,et al.  When are Probabilistic Explanations Possible , 1981 .

[41]  D. McFadden.  A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimation of Discrete Response Models Without Numerical Integration , 1989 .

[42]  R. Luce,et al.  The Choice Axiom after Twenty Years , 1977 .

[43]  L. Lovász,et al.  Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization , 1981 .

[44]  Peter C. Fishburn,et al.  Weak order polytopes , 2004, Discret. Math..

[45]  Reinhard Niederée,et al.  Generalizing the concept of binary choice systems induced by rankings: one way of probabilizing deterministic measurement structures , 1992 .

[46]  B. Grofman,et al.  A stochastic model of preference change and its application to 1992 presidential election panel data , 1999 .

[47]  W. Bossert,et al.  Utility in Social Choice , 2004 .

[48]  Tsui Kai-yuen.  Social Welfare Orderings for Ratio-Scale Measurable Utilities , 1997 .

[49]  E. Induráin,et al.  Representability of Interval Orders , 1998 .

[50]  Jean-Claude Falmagne,et al.  Functional Equations in the Behavioral Sciences] , 2022 .

[51]  J. Aczél,et al.  FUNCTIONAL EQUATIONS IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES^1 , 2000 .

[52]  H. D. Block,et al.  Random Orderings and Stochastic Theories of Responses (1960) , 1959 .

[53]  Mathieu Koppen,et al.  Random utility representation of binary choice probabilities: critical graphs yielding critical necessary conditions , 1995 .