Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
[Part 12] 1/38 Discrete Choice Modeling Stated Preference Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Advertisements

Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business IFS at UCL February 11-13, 2004
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
12. Random Parameters Logit Models. Random Parameters Model Allow model parameters as well as constants to be random Allow multiple observations with.
Part 24: Bayesian Estimation 24-1/35 Econometrics I Professor William Greene Stern School of Business Department of Economics.
Discrete Choice Models William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/54: Topic 5.1 – Modeling Stated Preference Data Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA.
Modeling Heterogeneity in Discrete Choice: Recent Developments and Contrasts with Bayesian Estimation William Greene Department of Economics Stern School.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University Lab Sessions.
15. Stated Preference Experiments. Panel Data Repeated Choice Situations Typically RP/SP constructions (experimental) Accommodating “panel data” Multinomial.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
10. Multinomial Choice. A Microeconomics Platform Consumers Maximize Utility (!!!) Fundamental Choice Problem: Maximize U(x 1,x 2,…) subject to prices.
[Part 15] 1/24 Discrete Choice Modeling Aggregate Share Data - BLP Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Microeconometric Modeling
Empirical Methods for Microeconomic Applications University of Lugano, Switzerland May 27-31, 2013 William Greene Department of Economics Stern School.
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
[Part 9] 1/79 Discrete Choice Modeling Modeling Heterogeneity Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University Lab Sessions.
1/68: Topic 4.2 – Latent Class Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA William Greene.
1/54: Topic 5.1 – Modeling Stated Preference Data Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University Lab Sessions.
Part 24: Stated Choice [1/117] Econometric Analysis of Panel Data William Greene Department of Economics Stern School of Business.
Discrete Choice Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
14. Scaling and Heteroscedasticity. Using Degenerate Branches to Reveal Scaling Travel Fly Rail Air CarTrain Bus LIMB BRANCH TWIG DriveGrndPblc.
Microeconometric Modeling
1/30: Topic 4.1 – Nested Logit and Multinomial Probit Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New.
[Part 7] 1/96 Discrete Choice Modeling Multinomial Choice Models Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Meeghat Habibian Analysis of Travel Choice Transportation Demand Analysis Lecture note.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/68: Topic 4.2 – Latent Class Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA William Greene.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
11. Nested Logit Models. Extended Formulation of the MNL Groups of similar alternatives Compound Utility: U(Alt)=U(Alt|Branch)+U(branch) Behavioral implications.
[Part 15] 1/24 Discrete Choice Modeling Aggregate Share Data - BLP Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
[Part 8] 1/26 Discrete Choice Modeling Nested Logit Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/30: Topic 4.1 – Nested Logit and Multinomial Probit Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/122: Topic 3.3 – Discrete Choice; The Multinomial Logit Model Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New.
M.Sc. in Economics Econometrics Module I
Discrete Choice Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
Discrete Choice Models
Discrete Choice Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling
Econometrics Chengyuan Yin School of Mathematics.
Discrete Choice Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
Empirical Methods for Microeconomic Applications University of Lugano, Switzerland May 27-31, 2019 William Greene Department of Economics Stern School.
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Empirical Methods for Microeconomic Applications
Presentation transcript:

Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University

Part 10 Multinomial Logit Extensions

What’s Wrong with the MNL Model?  I.I.D.  IIA (Independence from irrelevant alternatives) Peculiar behavioral assumption Leads to skewed, implausible empirical results Functional forms, e.g., nested logit, avoid IIA IIA will be a nonissue in what follows.  I nsufficiently heterogeneous: “… economists are often more interested in aggregate effects and regard heterogeneity as a statistical nuisance parameter problem which must be addressed but not emphasized. Econometricians frequently employ methods which do not allow for the estimation of individual level parameters.” (Allenby and Rossi, Journal of Econometrics, 1999)

A Model with Choice Heteroscedasticity

Heteroscedastic Extreme Value Model (1) | Start values obtained using MNL model | | Maximum Likelihood Estimates | | Log likelihood function | | Dependent variable Choice | | Response data are given as ind. choice. | | Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 bad obs. | |Variable| Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z]| GC | TTME | INVC | INVT | AASC | TASC | BASC |

Heteroscedastic Extreme Value Model (2) | Heteroskedastic Extreme Value Model | | Log likelihood function | | Number of parameters 10 | | Restricted log likelihood | |Variable| Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z]| Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) GC | TTME | INVC | INVT | AASC | TASC | BASC | Scale Parameters of Extreme Value Distns Minus 1.0 s_AIR | s_TRAIN | s_BUS | s_CAR | (Fixed Parameter) Std.Dev=pi/(theta*sqr(6)) for H.E.V. distribution. s_AIR | s_TRAIN | s_BUS | s_CAR | (Fixed Parameter) Normalized for estimation Structural parameters

HEV Model - Elasticities | Elasticity averaged over observations.| | Attribute is INVC in choice AIR | | Effects on probabilities of all choices in model: | | * = Direct Elasticity effect of the attribute. | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=AIR | | Choice=TRAIN | | Choice=BUS | | Choice=CAR | | Attribute is INVC in choice TRAIN | | Choice=AIR | | * Choice=TRAIN | | Choice=BUS | | Choice=CAR | | Attribute is INVC in choice BUS | | Choice=AIR | | Choice=TRAIN | | * Choice=BUS | | Choice=CAR | | Attribute is INVC in choice CAR | | Choice=AIR | | Choice=TRAIN | | Choice=BUS | | * Choice=CAR | | INVC in AIR | | Mean St.Dev | | * | | | | INVC in TRAIN | | | | * | | | | INVC in BUS | | | | * | | | | INVC in CAR | | | | * | Multinomial Logit

The Multinomial Probit Model

Multinomial Probit Model | Multinomial Probit Model | | Dependent variable MODE | | Number of observations 210 | | Iterations completed 30 | | Log likelihood function | Not comparable to MNL | Response data are given as ind. choice. | |Variable| Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z]| Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) GC | TTME | INVC | INVT | AASC | TASC | BASC | Std. Devs. of the Normal Distribution. s[AIR] | s[TRAIN]| s[BUS] | (Fixed Parameter) s[CAR] | (Fixed Parameter) Correlations in the Normal Distribution rAIR,TRA| rAIR,BUS| rTRA,BUS| rAIR,CAR| (Fixed Parameter) rTRA,CAR| (Fixed Parameter) rBUS,CAR| (Fixed Parameter)

Multinomial Probit Elasticities | Elasticity averaged over observations.| | Attribute is INVC in choice AIR | | Effects on probabilities of all choices in model: | | * = Direct Elasticity effect of the attribute. | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=AIR | | Choice=TRAIN | | Choice=BUS | | Choice=CAR | | Attribute is INVC in choice TRAIN | | Choice=AIR | | * Choice=TRAIN | | Choice=BUS | | Choice=CAR | | Attribute is INVC in choice BUS | | Choice=AIR | | Choice=TRAIN | | * Choice=BUS | | Choice=CAR | | Attribute is INVC in choice CAR | | Choice=AIR | | Choice=TRAIN | | Choice=BUS | | * Choice=CAR | | INVC in AIR | | Mean St.Dev | | * | | | | INVC in TRAIN | | | | * | | | | INVC in BUS | | | | * | | | | INVC in CAR | | | | * | Multinomial Logit

Variance Heterogeneity in MNL

Application: Shoe Brand Choice  S imulated Data: Stated Choice, 400 respondents, 8 choice situations, 3,200 observations  3 choice/attributes + NONE Fashion = High / Low Quality = High / Low Price = 25/50/75,100 coded 1,2,3,4  H eterogeneity: Sex, Age (<25, 25-39, 40+)  U nderlying data generated by a 3 class latent class process (100, 200, 100 in classes)  T hanks to (Latent Gold)

NLOGIT Commands for HEV Model Nlogit ; lhs=choice ; choices=Brand1,Brand2,Brand3,None ;Rhs = Fash,Qual,Price,ASC4 ;heteroscedasticity ;hfn=male,agel25,age2539 ; Effects: Price(Brand1,Brand2,Brand3)$

Multinomial Logit Starting Values | Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model | | Number of observations 3200 | | Log likelihood function | | Number of obs.= 3200, skipped 0 bad obs. | |Variable| Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z]| FASH | QUAL | PRICE | ASC4 |

Multinomial Logit Elasticities | Elasticity averaged over observations.| | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND1 | | Effects on probabilities of all choices in model: | | * = Direct Elasticity effect of the attribute. | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE | | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND2 | | Choice=BRAND | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE | | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND3 | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE |

HEV Model without Heterogeneity | Heteroskedastic Extreme Value Model | | Dependent variable CHOICE | | Number of observations 3200 | | Log likelihood function | | Response data are given as ind. choice. | |Variable| Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z]| Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) FASH | QUAL | PRICE | ASC4 | Scale Parameters of Extreme Value Distns Minus 1.0 s_BRAND1| s_BRAND2| s_BRAND3| s_NONE | (Fixed Parameter) Std.Dev=pi/(theta*sqr(6)) for H.E.V. distribution. s_BRAND1| s_BRAND2| s_BRAND3| s_NONE | (Fixed Parameter) Essentially no differences in variances across choices

Homogeneous HEV Elasticities | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND1 | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE | | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND2 | | Choice=BRAND | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE | | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND3 | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE | | Elasticity averaged over observations.| | Effects on probabilities of all choices in model: | | * = Direct Elasticity effect of the attribute. | | PRICE in choice BRAND1| | Mean St.Dev | | * | | | | PRICE in choice BRAND2| | | | * | | | | PRICE in choice BRAND3| | | | * | | | Multinomial Logit

Heteroscedasticity Across Individuals | Heteroskedastic Extreme Value Model | Homog-HEV MNL | Log likelihood function [10] | [7] [4] |Variable| Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z]| Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) FASH | QUAL | PRICE | ASC4 | Scale Parameters of Extreme Value Distributions s_BRAND1| s_BRAND2| s_BRAND3| s_NONE | (Fixed Parameter) Heterogeneity in Scales of Ext.Value Distns. MALE | AGE25 | AGE39 |

Variance Heterogeneity elasts | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND1 | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE | | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND2 | | Choice=BRAND | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE | | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND3 | | Choice=BRAND | | Choice=BRAND | | * Choice=BRAND | | Choice=NONE | | PRICE in choice BRAND1| | Mean St.Dev | | * | | | | PRICE in choice BRAND2| | | | * | | | | PRICE in choice BRAND3| | | | * | | | Multinomial Logit