Parameter estimation for generalized thurstone choice models

We consider the maximum likelihood parameter estimation problem for a generalized Thurstone choice model, where choices are from comparison sets of two or more items. We provide tight characterizations of the mean square error, as well as necessary and sufficient conditions for correct classification when each item belongs to one of two classes. These results provide insights into how the estimation accuracy depends on the choice of a generalized Thurstone choice model and the structure of comparison sets. We find that for a priori unbiased structures of comparisons, e.g., when comparison sets are drawn independently and uniformly at random, the number of observations needed to achieve a prescribed estimation accuracy depends on the choice of a generalized Thurstone choice model. For a broad set of generalized Thurstone choice models, which includes all popular instances used in practice, the estimation error is shown to be largely insensitive to the cardinality of comparison sets. On the other hand, we found that there exist generalized Thurstone choice models for which the estimation error decreases much faster with the cardinality of comparison sets

Models for Paired Comparison Data: A Review with Emphasis on Dependent Data

Thurstonian and Bradley-Terry models are the most commonly applied models in the analysis of paired comparison data. Since their introduction, numerous developments have been proposed in different areas. This paper provides an updated overview of these extensions, including how to account for object- and subject-specific covariates and how to deal with ordinal paired comparison data. Special emphasis is given to models for dependent comparisons. Although these models are more realistic, their use is complicated by numerical difficulties. We therefore concentrate on implementation issues. In particular, a pairwise likelihood approach is explored for models for dependent paired comparison data, and a simulation study is carried out to compare the performance of maximum pairwise likelihood with other limited information estimation methods. The methodology is illustrated throughout using a real data set about university paired comparisons performed by students.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/12-STS396 the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

When is it Better to Compare than to Score?

When eliciting judgements from humans for an unknown quantity, one often has the choice of making direct-scoring (cardinal) or comparative (ordinal) measurements. In this paper we study the relative merits of either choice, providing empirical and theoretical guidelines for the selection of a measurement scheme. We provide empirical evidence based on experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk that in a variety of tasks, (pairwise-comparative) ordinal measurements have lower per sample noise and are typically faster to elicit than cardinal ones. Ordinal measurements however typically provide less information. We then consider the popular Thurstone and Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) models for ordinal measurements and characterize the minimax error rates for estimating the unknown quantity. We compare these minimax error rates to those under cardinal measurement models and quantify for what noise levels ordinal measurements are better. Finally, we revisit the data collected from our experiments and show that fitting these models confirms this prediction: for tasks where the noise in ordinal measurements is sufficiently low, the ordinal approach results in smaller errors in the estimation

Minimax-optimal Inference from Partial Rankings

This paper studies the problem of inferring a global preference based on the partial rankings provided by many users over different subsets of items according to the Plackett-Luce model. A question of particular interest is how to optimally assign items to users for ranking and how many item assignments are needed to achieve a target estimation error. For a given assignment of items to users, we first derive an oracle lower bound of the estimation error that holds even for the more general Thurstone models. Then we show that the Cram\'er-Rao lower bound and our upper bounds inversely depend on the spectral gap of the Laplacian of an appropriately defined comparison graph. When the system is allowed to choose the item assignment, we propose a random assignment scheme. Our oracle lower bound and upper bounds imply that it is minimax-optimal up to a logarithmic factor among all assignment schemes and the lower bound can be achieved by the maximum likelihood estimator as well as popular rank-breaking schemes that decompose partial rankings into pairwise comparisons. The numerical experiments corroborate our theoretical findings.Comment: 16 pages, 2 figure

Estimation from Pairwise Comparisons: Sharp Minimax Bounds with Topology Dependence

Data in the form of pairwise comparisons arises in many domains, including preference elicitation, sporting competitions, and peer grading among others. We consider parametric ordinal models for such pairwise comparison data involving a latent vector $w^* \in \mathbb{R}^d$ that represents the "qualities" of the $d$ items being compared; this class of models includes the two most widely used parametric models--the Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) and the Thurstone models. Working within a standard minimax framework, we provide tight upper and lower bounds on the optimal error in estimating the quality score vector $w^*$ under this class of models. The bounds depend on the topology of the comparison graph induced by the subset of pairs being compared via its Laplacian spectrum. Thus, in settings where the subset of pairs may be chosen, our results provide principled guidelines for making this choice. Finally, we compare these error rates to those under cardinal measurement models and show that the error rates in the ordinal and cardinal settings have identical scalings apart from constant pre-factors.Comment: 39 pages, 5 figures. Significant extension of arXiv:1406.661

Ranking Models in Conjoint Analysis

In this paper we consider the estimation of probabilisticranking models in the context of conjoint experiments. By usingapproximate rather than exact ranking probabilities, we do notneed to compute high-dimensional integrals. We extend theapproximation technique proposed by \\citet{Henery1981} in theThurstone-Mosteller-Daniels model for any Thurstone orderstatistics model and we show that our approach allows for aunified approach. Moreover, our approach also allows for theanalysis of any partial ranking. Partial rankings are essentialin practical conjoint analysis to collect data efficiently torelieve respondents' task burden.conjoint experiments;partial rankings;thurstone order statistics model