Elimination-by-aspects and generalised extreme value offer competing paradigms for the representation of a common behaviour, that of individual discrete choice. Observing certain consistencies in their mathematical structure, several eminent authors have commented on the degree of equivalence between the two paradigms. Most contributions to this debate have, however, been less than definitive. More fundamentally, the contributions lack consensus. We advance the debate by establishing formal mathematical conditions under which three-alternative tree models from the two paradigms are exactly equivalent. We then extend our analysis to consider more general models, showing that equivalence can be established for general tree models, but not for cross-nested models.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.