IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v54y2010i6p1672-1682.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Distance-based tree models for ranking data

Author

Listed:
  • Lee, Paul H.
  • Yu, Philip L.H.

Abstract

Ranking data has applications in different fields of studies, like marketing, psychology and politics. Over the years, many models for ranking data have been developed. Among them, distance-based ranking models, which originate from the classical rank correlations, postulate that the probability of observing a ranking of items depends on the distance between the observed ranking and a modal ranking. The closer to the modal ranking, the higher the ranking probability is. However, such a model basically assumes a homogeneous population and does not incorporate the presence of covariates. To overcome these limitations, we combine the strength of a tree model and the existing distance-based models to build a model that can handle more complexity and improve prediction accuracy. We will introduce a recursive partitioning algorithm for building a tree model with a distance-based ranking model fitted at each leaf. We will also consider new weighted distance measures which allow different weights for different ranks in formulating more flexible distance-based tree models. Finally, we will apply the proposed methodology to analyze a ranking dataset of Inglehart's items collected in the 1999 European Values Studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Lee, Paul H. & Yu, Philip L.H., 2010. "Distance-based tree models for ranking data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 54(6), pages 1672-1682, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:54:y:2010:i:6:p:1672-1682
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-9473(10)00042-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ahn, Hongshik, 1996. "Log-normal regression modeling through recursive partitioning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-398, April.
    2. Agostino Tarsitano, 2009. "Comparing The Effectiveness Of Rank Correlation Statistics," Working Papers 200906, Università della Calabria, Dipartimento di Economia, Statistica e Finanza "Giovanni Anania" - DESF.
    3. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    4. Hausman, Jerry A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1987. "Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 83-104.
    5. Francesco Audrino & Peter Bühlmann, 2001. "Tree‐structured generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedastic models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(4), pages 727-744.
    6. Beggs, S. & Cardell, S. & Hausman, J., 1981. "Assessing the potential demand for electric cars," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 1-19, September.
    7. Murphy, Thomas Brendan & Martin, Donal, 2003. "Mixtures of distance-based models for ranking data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 41(3-4), pages 645-655, January.
    8. Philip Yu, 2000. "Bayesian analysis of order-statistics models for ranking data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 281-299, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amaya, Johanna & Arellana, Julian & Delgado-Lindeman, Maira, 2020. "Stakeholders perceptions to sustainable urban freight policies in emerging markets," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 329-348.
    2. Antonella Plaia & Mariangela Sciandra, 2019. "Weighted distance-based trees for ranking data," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 13(2), pages 427-444, June.
    3. Akbari, Sina & Escobedo, Adolfo R., 2023. "Beyond kemeny rank aggregation: A parameterizable-penalty framework for robust ranking aggregation with ties," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    4. Cascón, J.M. & González-Arteaga, T. & de Andrés Calle, R., 2022. "A new preference classification approach: The λ-dissensus cluster algorithm," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Antonio D’Ambrosio & Willem J. Heiser, 2016. "A Recursive Partitioning Method for the Prediction of Preference Rankings Based Upon Kemeny Distances," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 81(3), pages 774-794, September.
    6. Lee, Paul H. & Yu, Philip L.H., 2012. "Mixtures of weighted distance-based models for ranking data with applications in political studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 2486-2500.
    7. Yu-Shan Shih & Kuang-Hsun Liu, 2019. "Regression trees for detecting preference patterns from rank data," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 13(3), pages 683-702, September.
    8. Antonella Plaia & Simona Buscemi & Johannes Fürnkranz & Eneldo Loza Mencía, 2022. "Comparing Boosting and Bagging for Decision Trees of Rankings," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 39(1), pages 78-99, March.
    9. Kung, Yi-Hung & Lin, Chang-Ting & Shih, Yu-Shan, 2012. "Split variable selection for tree modeling on rank data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(9), pages 2830-2836.
    10. Krishna Paudel & Mahesh Pandit & Michael Dunn, 2013. "Using spectral analysis and multinomial logit regression to explain households’ choice patterns," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 739-760, April.
    11. Ghimire, Ramesh & Green, Gary T. & Paudel, Krishna P. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Cordell, H. Ken, 2017. "Visitors' Preferences for Freshwater Amenity Characteristics: Implications from the U.S. Household Survey," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(1), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Wei-Yin Loh, 2014. "Fifty Years of Classification and Regression Trees," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 82(3), pages 329-348, December.
    13. Fuchs Sebastian & McCord Yann, 2019. "On the lower bound of Spearman’s footrule," Dependence Modeling, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 126-132, January.
    14. Dongyun Nie & Michael Scriney & Xiaoning Liang & Mark Roantree, 2024. "From data acquisition to validation: a complete workflow for predicting individual customer lifetime value," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(2), pages 321-341, June.
    15. Jianbo Li & Minggao Gu & Tao Hu, 2012. "General partially linear varying-coefficient transformation models for ranking data," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(7), pages 1475-1488, January.
    16. Antonio D’Ambrosio & Carmela Iorio & Michele Staiano & Roberta Siciliano, 2019. "Median constrained bucket order rank aggregation," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 787-802, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Godager, Geir, 2012. "Birds of a feather flock together: A study of doctor–patient matching," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 296-305.
    2. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    3. Ben Aoki-Sherwood & Catherine Bregou & David Liben-Nowell & Kiran Tomlinson & Thomas Zeng, 2024. "Bounding Consideration Probabilities in Consider-Then-Choose Ranking Models," Papers 2401.11016, arXiv.org.
    4. Kockelman, Kara M. & Podgorski, Kaethe & Bina, Michelle & Gadda, Shashank, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Pricing Existing Roads and Other Transportation Policies: The Texas Perspective," Journal of the Transportation Research Forum, Transportation Research Forum, vol. 48(3).
    5. Hong il Yoo, 2012. "The perceived unreliability of rank-ordered data: an econometric origin and implications," Discussion Papers 2012-46, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    6. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    7. Zheng, Qiujie & Wang, H. Holly, 2016. "Chinese preferences for sustainable attributes for food away from home: A rank-ordered model," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 148-158.
    8. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    9. Yuan Cheng & John K. Dagsvik & Xuehui Han, 2014. "Real Estate Market Policy and Household Demand for Housing," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 237-253, May.
    10. José L. Oviedo & Hong Il Yoo, 2017. "A Latent Class Nested Logit Model for Rank-Ordered Data with Application to Cork Oak Reforestation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(4), pages 1021-1051, December.
    11. Denise Doiron & Jane Hall & Patricia Kenny & Deborah J. Street, 2014. "Job preferences of students and new graduates in nursing," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(9), pages 924-939, March.
    12. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    13. Costanigro, Marco & Deselnicu, Oana & Kroll, Stephan, 2012. "Truthful, Misguiding Labels: The Implications of Labeling Production Processes rather than their Outcomes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124615, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2006. "Discrete Choice Survey Experiments: A Comparison Using Flexible Models," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-60, Resources for the Future.
    15. Marco A. Palma, 2017. "Improving the prediction of ranking data," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1681-1710, December.
    16. Kumar, Sushil & Kant, Shashi, 2007. "Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders' preferences for multiple forest values," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 516-526, January.
    17. Barbara Baarsma, 2003. "The Valuation of the IJmeer Nature Reserve using Conjoint Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 343-356, July.
    18. Gopindra Sivakumar Nair & Sebastian Astroza & Chandra R. Bhat & Sara Khoeini & Ram M. Pendyala, 2018. "An application of a rank ordered probit modeling approach to understanding level of interest in autonomous vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1623-1637, November.
    19. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    20. Thijs Brouwer & Fabio Galeotti & Marie Claire Villeval, 2023. "Teaching Norms: Direct Evidence of Parental Transmission," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(650), pages 872-887.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:54:y:2010:i:6:p:1672-1682. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.