Abstract
The method of paired comparisons (PC) endeavors to rank treatments presented in pairs to panelists (or respondents, judges, jurists, etc.) and they have to select the better one based on sensory evaluations. Sometimes the situations may occur when the panelists cannot discriminate between the treatments and declare a tie. In this study, an effort is made to extend the Weibull PC model to accommodate ties. The extended Weibull PC model is analyzed using Bayesian paradigm. Four different loss functions are used under noninformative (Uniform and Jeffreys) priors. The posterior and marginal posterior distributions are derived. The posterior estimates, posterior risks, preference probabilities, posterior probabilities and predictive probabilities are evaluated to know the ranking of ecological factor. The goodness of the proposed model is assessed. The entire analysis is carried out using a real data set based on the preference for the ecological factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data have been originally collected from the students of earth science department, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan. Which is also mentioned in the manuscript.
References
Annis DH, Craig BA (2005) Hybrid paired comparison analysis, with applications to the ranking of college football teams. J Quant Anal Sports 1(1):1–31. https://doi.org/10.2202/1559-0410.1000
Abbas N, Aslam M (2009) Prioritizing the items through paired comparison models, a Bayesian approach. Pak J Stat 25(1):59–69
Aslam M (2002) Bayesian analysis for paired comparison model allowing ties and not allowing Ties. Pak J Stat All Ser 18(1):53–70
Bayes T (1763) An essay towards solving a problem in doctrine of chance. Philos Trans R Soc Lond 53:370–418
Bradley RA, Terry ME (1952) Rank analysis of incomplete block design I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39:324–345
Cattelan M (2012) Models for paired comparison data: a review with emphasis on dependent data. Stat Sci 27(3):412–433. https://doi.org/10.1214/12-STS396
Davidson RR (1970) On extending the Bradley–Terry model to accommodate ties in paired comparison experiments. J Am Stat Assoc 65:317–328
Dittrich R, Francis B, Hatzinger R, Katzenbeisser W (2012) Missing observations in paired comparison data. Stat Model 12(2):117–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471082X1001200201
Kafyat T, Aslam M, Cheema SA (2020) The Maxwell paired comparison model under Bayesian paradigm using informative priors. Commun Stat Theory Methods 51:301–312
Laplace PS (1812) Theorie analytique des probabilities. Courcier, Paris
Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior. Wiley, New York
Rao PV, Kupper LL (1967) Ties in paired comparison experiments: a generalization of the Bradley–Terry model. J Am Stat Assoc 62(317):194–204
Schauberger G, Tutz G (2017) Subject-specific modelling of paired comparison data: a lasso-type penalty approach. Stat Model Int J 17(3):223–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471082X17693086
Sindhu TN, Hussain Z, Aslam M (2019) Parameter and reliability estimation of inverted Maxwell mixture model. J Stat Manag Syst 22(3):459–493
Sung YT, Wu JS (2018) The visual analogue scale for rating, ranking and paired-comparison (VAS-RRP): a new technique for psychological measurement. Behav Res Methods 50(4):1694–1715. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1041-8
Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 34:273–286
Ullah K, Aslam M (2020) Bayesian analysis of the Weibull paired comparison model using numerical approximation. J Math. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6628379
Ullah K, Aslam M, Sindhu TN (2020) Bayesian analysis of the Weibull paired comparison model using informative prior. Alex Eng J 59(4):2371–2378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.02.032
Van Baaren A (1978) On a class of extensions to the Bradley–Terry model in paired comparisons. Stat Neerl 32(1):57–67
van Wilgenburg S, Sólymos P, Kardynal K, Frey M (2017) Paired sampling standardizes point count data from humans and acoustic recorders. Avian Conserv Ecol 12(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00975-120113
Funding
No funding has been received from any source (institutions or organizations) for the completion of this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
KU performed the data analysis and preparation of original draft. MA did supervision and methodology validation. NA worked on investigation, review and validation. SIS did the conceptual and graphical analysis. All the authors contributed in the interpretation discussion and refinement of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest among the reviewers, organizations or institutions.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ullah, K., Aslam, M., Abbas, N. et al. On ranking climate factors affecting the living organisms based on paired comparison model, a Bayesian approach. Clim Dyn 60, 2759–2766 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06472-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06472-1