IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ems/eureir/1943.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improved customer choice predictions using ensemble methods

Author

Listed:
  • van Wezel, M.C.
  • Potharst, R.

Abstract

In this paper various ensemble learning methods from machine learning and statistics are considered and applied to the customer choice modeling problem. The application of ensemble learning usually improves the prediction quality of flexible models like decision trees and thus leads to improved predictions. We give experimental results for two real-life marketing datasets using decision trees, ensemble versions of decision trees and the logistic regression model, which is a standard approach for this problem. The ensemble models are found to improve upon individual decision trees and outperform logistic regression. Next, an additive decomposition of the prediction error of a model, the bias/variance decomposition, is considered. A model with a high bias lacks the flexibility to fit the data well. A high variance indicates that a model is instable with respect to different datasets. Decision trees have a high variance component and a low bias component in the prediction error, whereas logistic regression has a high bias component and a low variance component. It is shown that ensemble methods aim at minimizing the variance component in the prediction error while leaving the bias component unaltered. Bias/variance decompositions for all models for both customer choice datasets are given to illustrate these concepts.

Suggested Citation

  • van Wezel, M.C. & Potharst, R., 2005. "Improved customer choice predictions using ensemble methods," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2005-08, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
  • Handle: RePEc:ems:eureir:1943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repub.eur.nl/pub/1943/ei200508.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter M. Guadagni & John D. C. Little, 1983. "A Logit Model of Brand Choice Calibrated on Scanner Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 203-238.
    2. Hu, Michael Y. & Tsoukalas, Christos, 2003. "Explaining consumer choice through neural networks: The stacked generalization approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 650-660, May.
    3. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram & Russell S. Winer, 1995. "Empirical Generalizations from Reference Price Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3_supplem), pages 161-169.
    4. Yves Bentz & Dwight Merunka, 2000. "Neural networks and the multinomial logit for brand choice modelling: a hybrid approach," Post-Print hal-01822273, HAL.
    5. Franses,Philip Hans & Paap,Richard, 2010. "Quantitative Models in Marketing Research," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521143653, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van Wezel, Michiel & Potharst, Rob, 2007. "Improved customer choice predictions using ensemble methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 436-452, August.
    2. Todor Krastevich, 2013. "Using Predictive Modeling to Improve Direct Marketing Performance," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 3, pages 25-55.

    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. van Wezel, Michiel & Potharst, Rob, 2007. "Improved customer choice predictions using ensemble methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 436-452, August.
    2. Polo, Yolanda & Sese, F. Javier & Verhoef, Peter C., 2011. "The Effect of Pricing and Advertising on Customer Retention in a Liberalizing Market," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 201-214.
    3. Bernhard Baumgartner & Daniel Guhl & Thomas Kneib & Winfried J. Steiner, 2018. "Flexible estimation of time-varying effects for frequently purchased retail goods: a modeling approach based on household panel data," OR Spectrum: Quantitative Approaches in Management, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research e.V., vol. 40(4), pages 837-873, October.
    4. Priya Jha-Dang, 2006. "A Review of Psychological Research on Consumer Promotions and a New Perspective Based on Mental Accounting," Vision, , vol. 10(3), pages 35-43, July.
    5. Moon, Sangkil & Voss, Glenn, 2009. "How do price range shoppers differ from reference price point shoppers?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 31-38, January.
    6. Necati Tereyağoğlu & Peter S. Fader & Senthil Veeraraghavan, 2018. "Multiattribute Loss Aversion and Reference Dependence: Evidence from the Performing Arts Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 421-436, January.
    7. Kamel Jedidi & Carl F. Mela & Sunil Gupta, 1999. "Managing Advertising and Promotion for Long-Run Profitability," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22.
    8. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2005-057 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Potharst, R. & van Rijthoven, M. & van Wezel, M.C., 2005. "Modeling brand choice using boosted and stacked neural networks," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2005-05, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    10. Hruschka, Harald & Fettes, Werner & Probst, Markus, 2004. "An empirical comparison of the validity of a neural net based multinomial logit choice model to alternative model specifications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(1), pages 166-180, November.
    11. Kopalle, Praveen K. & Kannan, P.K. & Boldt, Lin Bao & Arora, Neeraj, 2012. "The impact of household level heterogeneity in reference price effects on optimal retailer pricing policies," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 102-114.
    12. Teck H. Ho & Noah Lim & Colin Camerer, 2005. "Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000476, UCLA Department of Economics.
    13. Dawes, John G., 2012. "Brand-Pack Size Cannibalization Arising from Temporary Price Promotions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 343-355.
    14. Shenhao Wang & Baichuan Mo & Jinhua Zhao, 2019. "Deep Neural Networks for Choice Analysis: Architectural Design with Alternative-Specific Utility Functions," Papers 1909.07481, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2021.
    15. Elshiewy, Ossama & Peschel, Anne O., 2022. "Internal reference price response across store formats," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 496-509.
    16. Vroomen, Bjorn & Hans Franses, Philip & van Nierop, Erjen, 2004. "Modeling consideration sets and brand choice using artificial neural networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 206-217, April.
    17. Jean-Pierre Dubé, 2004. "Multiple Discreteness and Product Differentiation: Demand for Carbonated Soft Drinks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 66-81, September.
    18. Robert Kapłon, 2006. "A retrospective review of categorical data analysis – theory and marketing practice," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 16(1), pages 55-72.
    19. Roozbeh Irani-Kermani & Edward C. Jaenicke & Ardalan Mirshani, 2023. "Accommodating heterogeneity in brand loyalty estimation: application to the U.S. beer retail market," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(4), pages 820-835, December.
    20. Irani-Kermani, Roozbeh & Jaenicke, Edward C., 2018. "Generalizing Variety Seeking Measurement from Brand Space to Product Attribute Space," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273818, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. van Oest, Rutger, 2013. "Why are Consumers Less Loss Averse in Internal than External Reference Prices?," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 62-71.

    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:ems:eureir:1943. 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: RePub (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feeurnl.html .

    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.