IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transb/v183y2024ics0191261524000717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new flexible and partially monotonic discrete choice model

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Eui-Jin
  • Bansal, Prateek

Abstract

The poor predictability and the misspecification arising from hand-crafted utility functions are common issues in theory-driven discrete choice models (DCMs). Data-driven DCMs improve predictability through flexible utility specifications, but they do not address the misspecification issue and provide untrustworthy behavioral interpretations (e.g., biased willingness to pay estimates). Improving interpretability at the minimum loss of flexibility/predictability is the main challenge in the data-driven DCM. To this end, this study proposes a flexible and partially monotonic DCM by specifying the systematic utility using the Lattice networks (i.e., DCM-LN). DCM-LN ensures the monotonicity of the utility function relative to the selected attributes while learning attribute-specific non-linear effects through piecewise linear functions and interaction effects using multilinear interpolations in a data-driven manner. Partial monotonicity could be viewed as domain-knowledge-based regularization to prevent overfitting, consequently avoiding incorrect signs of the attribute effects. The light architecture and an automated process to write monotonicity constraints make DCM-LN scalable and translatable to practice. The proposed DCM-LN is benchmarked against deep neural network-based DCM (i.e., DCM-DNN) and a DCM with a hand-crafted utility in a simulation study. While DCM-DNN marginally outperforms DCM-LN in predictability, DCM-LN highly outperforms all considered models in interpretability, i.e., recovering willingness to pay at individual and population levels. The empirical study verifies the balanced interpretability and predictability of DCM-LN. With superior interpretability and high predictability, DCM-LN lays out new pathways to harmonize the theory-driven and data-driven paradigms.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Eui-Jin & Bansal, Prateek, 2024. "A new flexible and partially monotonic discrete choice model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:183:y:2024:i:c:s0191261524000717
    DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2024.102947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191261524000717
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.trb.2024.102947?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ji, Shujuan & Wang, Xin & Lyu, Tao & Liu, Xiaojie & Wang, Yuanqing & Heinen, Eva & Sun, Zhenwei, 2022. "Understanding cycling distance according to the prediction of the XGBoost and the interpretation of SHAP: A non-linear and interaction effect analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. Brownstone, David & Ghosh, Arindam & Golob, Thomas F. & Kazimi, Camilla & Van Amelsfort, Dirk, 2003. "Drivers' willingness-to-pay to reduce travel time: evidence from the San Diego I-15 congestion pricing project," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 373-387, May.
    3. Kim, Eui-Jin & Kim, Youngseo & Jang, Sunghoon & Kim, Dong-Kyu, 2021. "Tourists’ preference on the combination of travel modes under Mobility-as-a-Service environment," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 236-255.
    4. Andrew Daly & Nobuhiro Sanko & Mark Wardman, 2017. "Cost and time damping: evidence from aggregate rail direct demand models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1499-1517, November.
    5. Eric Miller, 2023. "The current state of activity-based travel demand modelling and some possible next steps," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 565-570, July.
    6. Bansal, Prateek & Daziano, Ricardo A. & Sunder, Naveen, 2019. "Arriving at a decision: A semi-parametric approach to institutional birth choice in India," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 86-103.
    7. Bansal, Prateek & Kumar, Rajeev Ranjan & Raj, Alok & Dubey, Subodh & Graham, Daniel J., 2021. "Willingness to pay and attitudinal preferences of Indian consumers for electric vehicles," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    8. Sifringer, Brian & Lurkin, Virginie & Alahi, Alexandre, 2020. "Enhancing discrete choice models with representation learning," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 236-261.
    9. Swait, Joffre, 2001. "A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 903-928, November.
    10. Han, Yafei & Pereira, Francisco Camara & Ben-Akiva, Moshe & Zegras, Christopher, 2022. "A neural-embedded discrete choice model: Learning taste representation with strengthened interpretability," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 166-186.
    11. Jeppe Rich & Stefan L. Mabit, 2016. "Cost damping and functional form in transport models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 889-912, September.
    12. Batarce, Marco & Muñoz, Juan Carlos & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2016. "Valuing crowding in public transport: Implications for cost-benefit analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 358-378.
    13. Prateek Bansal & Daniel Hörcher & Daniel J. Graham, 2022. "A dynamic choice model to estimate the user cost of crowding with large‐scale transit data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 185(2), pages 615-639, April.
    14. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, November.
    15. Daisuke Fukuda & Tetsuo Yai, 2010. "Semiparametric specification of the utility function in a travel mode choice model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 221-238, March.
    16. Prateek Bansal & Rajeev Ranjan Kumar & Alok Raj & Subodh Dubey & Daniel J. Graham, 2021. "Willingness to Pay and Attitudinal Preferences of Indian Consumers for Electric Vehicles," Papers 2101.08008, arXiv.org, revised May 2021.
    17. Ortelli, Nicola & Hillel, Tim & Pereira, Francisco C. & de Lapparent, Matthieu & Bierlaire, Michel, 2021. "Assisted specification of discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Ho, Chinh Q. & Mulley, Corinne & Hensher, David A., 2020. "Public preferences for mobility as a service: Insights from stated preference surveys," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 70-90.
    19. Melvin Wong & Bilal Farooq, 2019. "ResLogit: A residual neural network logit model for data-driven choice modelling," Papers 1912.10058, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2021.
    20. Wang, Shenhao & Mo, Baichuan & Zhao, Jinhua, 2021. "Theory-based residual neural networks: A synergy of discrete choice models and deep neural networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 333-358.
    21. Brathwaite, Timothy & Walker, Joan L., 2018. "Causal inference in travel demand modeling (and the lack thereof)," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-18.
    22. Arkoudi, Ioanna & Krueger, Rico & Azevedo, Carlos Lima & Pereira, Francisco C., 2023. "Combining discrete choice models and neural networks through embeddings: Formulation, interpretability and performance," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    23. Dubey, Subodh & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A multinomial probit model with Choquet integral and attribute cut-offs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 140-163.
    24. Hernandez, Jose Ignacio & van Cranenburgh, Sander & Chorus, Caspar & Mouter, Niek, 2023. "Data-driven assisted model specification for complex choice experiments data: Association rules learning and random forests for Participatory Value Evaluation experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dubey, Subodh & Cats, Oded & Hoogendoorn, Serge & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A multinomial probit model with Choquet integral and attribute cut-offs," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 140-163.
    2. Smeele, Nicholas V.R. & Chorus, Caspar G. & Schermer, Maartje H.N. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2023. "Towards machine learning for moral choice analysis in health economics: A literature review and research agenda," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 326(C).
    3. Jia, Wenjian & Jiang, Zhiqiu & Wang, Qian & Xu, Bin & Xiao, Mei, 2023. "Preferences for zero-emission vehicle attributes: Comparing early adopters with mainstream consumers in California," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 21-32.
    4. Bhat, Furqan A. & Verma, Ashish, 2024. "Electric two-wheeler adoption in India – A discrete choice analysis of motivators and barriers affecting the potential electric two-wheeler buyers," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 118-131.
    5. Chakraborty, Rahul & Chakravarty, Sujoy, 2023. "Factors affecting acceptance of electric two-wheelers in India: A discrete choice survey," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 27-41.
    6. Wang, Qingyi & Wang, Shenhao & Zheng, Yunhan & Lin, Hongzhou & Zhang, Xiaohu & Zhao, Jinhua & Walker, Joan, 2024. "Deep hybrid model with satellite imagery: How to combine demand modeling and computer vision for travel behavior analysis?," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    7. Huo, Jinghai & Kim, Eui-Jin & Bansal, Prateek, 2024. "Understanding consumers’ non-compensatory and heterogeneous preferences for electric vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    8. Rossetti, Tomás & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2024. "Crowding multipliers on shared transportation in New York City: The effects of COVID-19 and implications for a sustainable future," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 224-236.
    9. Lahoz, Lorena Torres & Pereira, Francisco Camara & Sfeir, Georges & Arkoudi, Ioanna & Monteiro, Mayara Moraes & Azevedo, Carlos Lima, 2023. "Attitudes and Latent Class Choice Models using Machine Learning," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. Visaria, Anant Atul & Jensen, Anders Fjendbo & Thorhauge, Mikkel & Mabit, Stefan Eriksen, 2022. "User preferences for EV charging, pricing schemes, and charging infrastructure," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 120-143.
    11. Ali, Azam & Kalatian, Arash & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2023. "Comparing and contrasting choice model and machine learning techniques in the context of vehicle ownership decisions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    12. Georges Sfeir & Filipe Rodrigues & Maya Abou-Zeid, 2021. "Gaussian Process Latent Class Choice Models," Papers 2101.12252, arXiv.org.
    13. Beeramoole, Prithvi Bhat & Arteaga, Cristian & Pinz, Alban & Haque, Md Mazharul & Paz, Alexander, 2023. "Extensive hypothesis testing for estimation of mixed-Logit models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    14. Qingyi Wang & Shenhao Wang & Yunhan Zheng & Hongzhou Lin & Xiaohu Zhang & Jinhua Zhao & Joan Walker, 2023. "Deep hybrid model with satellite imagery: how to combine demand modeling and computer vision for behavior analysis?," Papers 2303.04204, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    15. Bhat, Furqan A. & Tiwari, Gaurav Yash & Verma, Ashish, 2024. "Preferences for public electric vehicle charging infrastructure locations: A discrete choice analysis," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 177-197.
    16. Qian, Lixian & Huang, Youlin & Tyfield, David & Soopramanien, Didier, 2023. "Dynamic consumer preferences for electric vehicles in China: A longitudinal approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    17. Haidi Han & Shanxia Sun, 2024. "Identifying Heterogeneous Willingness to Pay for New Energy Vehicles Attributes: A Discrete Choice Experiment in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-24, April.
    18. Bouscasse, Hélène & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2019. "Perceived comfort and values of travel time savings in the Rhône-Alpes Region," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 370-387.
    19. Dubey, Subodh & Sharma, Ishant & Mishra, Sabyasachee & Cats, Oded & Bansal, Prateek, 2022. "A General Framework to Forecast the Adoption of Novel Products: A Case of Autonomous Vehicles," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 63-95.
    20. Hasselwander, Marc & Bigotte, Joao F. & Antunes, Antonio P. & Sigua, Ricardo G., 2022. "Towards sustainable transport in developing countries: Preliminary findings on the demand for mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) in Metro Manila," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 501-518.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:183:y:2024:i:c:s0191261524000717. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/548/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.