[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3580305.3599484acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Free access

Rank-heterogeneous Preference Models for School Choice

Published: 04 August 2023 Publication History

Abstract

School choice mechanism designers use discrete choice models to understand and predict families' preferences. The most widely-used choice model, the multinomial logit (MNL), is linear in school and/or household attributes. While the model is simple and interpretable, it assumes the ranked preference lists arise from a choice process that is uniform throughout the ranking, from top to bottom. In this work, we introduce two strategies for rank-heterogeneous choice modeling tailored for school choice. First, we adapt a context-dependent random utility model (CDM), considering down-rank choices as occurring in the context of earlier up-rank choices. Second, we consider stratifying the choice modeling by rank, regularizing rank-adjacent models towards one another when appropriate. Using data on household preferences from the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) across multiple years, we show that the contextual models considerably improve our out-of-sample evaluation metrics across all rank positions over the non-contextual models in the literature. Meanwhile, stratifying the model by rank can yield more accurate first-choice predictions while down-rank predictions are relatively unimproved. These models provide performance upgrades that school choice researchers can adopt to improve predictions and counterfactual analyses.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (rtfp0550-2min-promo.mp4)
Promotional video for the ACM publication, Rank-heterogeneous Preference Models for School Choice

References

[1]
Atila Abdulkadirolu, Parag A. Pathak, Jonathan Schellenberg, and Christopher R. Walters. 2020. Do Parents Value School Effectiveness? American Economic Review, Vol. 110, 5 (May 2020), 1502--39.
[2]
Nikhil Agarwal and Paulo Somaini. 2018. Demand Analysis Using Strategic Reports: An Application to a School Choice Mechanism. Econometrica, Vol. 86, 2 (2018), 391--444.
[3]
Nikhil Agarwal and Paulo Somaini. 2020. Revealed Preference Analysis of School Choice Models. Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 12, 1 (2020), 471--501.
[4]
Paul D. Allison and Nicholas A. Christakis. 1994. Logit Models for Sets of Ranked Items. Sociological Methodology, Vol. 24 (1994), 199--228.
[5]
Itai Ashlagi and Afshin Nikzad. 2020. What matters in school choice tie-breaking? How competition guides design. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 190 (2020), 105120.
[6]
Itai Ashlagi, Afshin Nikzad, and Assaf Romm. 2019. Assigning more students to their top choices: A comparison of tie-breaking rules. Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 115 (2019), 167--187.
[7]
Richard R. Batsell and John C. Polking. 1985. A New Class of Market Share Models. Marketing Science, Vol. 4, 3 (1985), 177--198.
[8]
Amanda Bower and Laura Balzano. 2020. Preference modeling with context-dependent salient features. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1067--1077.
[9]
Caterina Calsamiglia, Chao Fu, and Maia Güell. 2020. Structural Estimation of a Model of School Choices: The Boston Mechanism versus Its Alternatives. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 128, 2 (2020), 642--680.
[10]
Randall G. Chapman and Richard Staelin. 1982. Exploiting Rank Ordered Choice Set Data within the Stochastic Utility Model. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, 3 (1982), 288--301.
[11]
Douglas E. Critchlow, Michael A. Fligner, and Joseph S. Verducci. 1991. Probability models on rankings. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 35, 3 (1991), 294--318.
[12]
Dennis Fok, Richard Paap, and Bram Van Dijk. 2012. A rank-ordered logit model with unobserved heterogeneity in ranking capabilities. Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 27, 5 (2012), 831--846.
[13]
D. Gale and L. S. Shapley. 1962. College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 69, 1 (1962), 9--15.
[14]
Monique De Haan, Pieter Gautier, Hessel Oosterbeek, and Bas Van der Klaauw. 2015. The Performance of School Assignment Mechanisms in Practice. Journal of Political Economy (2015), null.
[15]
Justine S. Hastings, Thomas J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger. 2008. Heterogeneous Preferences and the Efficacy of Public School Choice.
[16]
Jerry A. Hausman and Paul A. Ruud. 1987. Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 34, 1 (1987), 83--104.
[17]
Seung-Jean Kim, Kwangmoo Koh, Stephen Boyd, and Dimitry Gorinevsky. 2009. $backslash$ell_1 trend filtering. SIAM review, Vol. 51, 2 (2009), 339--360.
[18]
Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization.
[19]
Stephanie R Land and Jerome H Friedman. 1997. Variable fusion: A new adaptive signal regression method.
[20]
Mariana Laverde. 2022. Distance to Schools and Equal Access in School Choice Systems. Working Papers 2022-002. Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
[21]
R. Duncan Luce. 1959. Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical analysis. Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
[22]
R. Duncan Luce. 1977. The choice axiom after twenty years. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 15, 3 (1977), 215--233.
[23]
Daniel McFadden. 1978. Modelling the choice of residential location. Spatial interaction Theory and Planning Models (1978).
[24]
Daniel McFadden and Kenneth Train. 2000. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 15, 5 (2000), 447--470.
[25]
Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space.
[26]
Parag A. Pathak and Peng Shi. 2014. Demand Modeling, Forecasting, and Counterfactuals, Part I.
[27]
Parag A Pathak and Peng Shi. 2017. How Well Do Structural Demand Models Work? Counterfactual Predictions in School Choice. Working Paper 24017. National Bureau of Economic Research.
[28]
R. L. Plackett. 1968. Random Permutations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), Vol. 30, 3 (1968), 517--534.
[29]
Girish N. Punj and Richard Staelin. 1983. A Model of Consumer Information Search Behavior for New Automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, 4 (03 1983), 366--380.
[30]
Arjun Seshadri, Alexander Peysakhovich, and Johan Ugander. 2019. Discovering Context Effects from Raw Choice Data. CoRR, Vol. abs/1902.03266 (2019). showeprint[arXiv]1902.03266
[31]
Arjun Seshadri, Stephen Ragain, and Johan Ugander. 2020. Learning Rich Rankings. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33. 9435--9446.
[32]
Alexander J Smola and Risi Kondor. 2003. Kernels and regularization on graphs. In Learning theory and kernel machines. Springer, 144--158.
[33]
Robert Tibshirani, Michael Saunders, Saharon Rosset, Ji Zhu, and Keith Knight. 2005. Sparsity and smoothness via the fused lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), Vol. 67, 1 (2005), 91--108.
[34]
Kiran Tomlinson and Austin R Benson. 2021. Learning interpretable feature context effects in discrete choice. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 1582--1592.
[35]
Kenneth Train. 2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation second edition ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
[36]
Jennifer S Trueblood, Scott D Brown, Andrew Heathcote, and Jerome R Busemeyer. 2013. Not just for consumers: Context effects are fundamental to decision making. Psychological science, Vol. 24, 6 (2013), 901--908.
[37]
Jonathan Tuck, Shane Barratt, and Stephen Boyd. 2021. A Distributed Method for Fitting Laplacian Regularized Stratified Models. J. Mach. Learn. Res., Vol. 22, 1, Article 60 (Jan 2021), 37 pages.
[38]
Amos Tversky. 1969. Intransitivity of Preferences. Psychological Review, Vol. 76, 1 (1969), 31--48.
[39]
Amos Tversky and Itamar Simonson. 1993. Context-Dependent Preferences. Management Science, Vol. 39, 10 (1993), 1179--1189.
[40]
Yu-Xiang Wang, James Sharpnack, Alex Smola, and Ryan Tibshirani. 2015. Trend filtering on graphs. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 1042--1050.
[41]
Lirong Xia. 2019. Learning and Decision-Making from Rank Data. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Vol. 13 (02 2019), 1--159. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00876ED1V01Y201810AIM040

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Statistical Models of Top-k Partial OrdersProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3672014(39-48)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
KDD '23: Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
August 2023
5996 pages
ISBN:9798400701030
DOI:10.1145/3580305
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 04 August 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. discrete choice
  2. preference modeling
  3. ranking models
  4. school choice

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

KDD '23
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,133 of 8,635 submissions, 13%

Upcoming Conference

KDD '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)456
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)24
Reflects downloads up to 30 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Statistical Models of Top-k Partial OrdersProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining10.1145/3637528.3672014(39-48)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2024

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media