Prove that Choice Coherence implies Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA).

From the definition of choice coherence, we have this: A choice function c satisfies choice coherence if, for every pair x and y from X and A and B from A, if x, y are in A and B, x in c(A), and y not in c(A), then y is not in c(B).

From the definition of IIA, we have this: If A is preferred to B out of the choice set {A,B}, introducing a third option X, expanding the choice set to {A,B,X}, must not make B preferable to A.

The converse is not true (IIA does not imply choice coherence) since we can construct a counterexample, as per here:

C({x,y,z}) = {x}

C({x,y}) = {x}

C({x}) = {x}

C({y}) = {y}

C({x,y}) = {x,y}

Since IIA is the weaker assumption of the two, how can we show that choice coherence implies IIA? Thanks for your help.


1 Answer 1


I think your notation makes this more confusing that is necessary since $A$ and $B$ represent sets of alternatives in one setting and alternatives in the other setting.

So write IIA as:

If $x\in C\big(\{x,y\}\big)$ and $y\notin C\big(\{x,y\}\big)$, then $y\notin C\big(x,y,z\big)$.

To prove this from choice coherence, simply choose $A$ and $B$ appropriately.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.