Yafei Han, Francisco Camara Pereira, Moshe Ben-Akiva, Christopher Zegras
arXiv 3 Feb 2020 · Econometrics · 12 citations (OpenAlex)
arXiv:2002.00922 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text
Discrete choice models (DCMs) require a priori knowledge of the utility functions, especially how tastes vary across individuals. Utility misspecification may lead to biased estimates, inaccurate interpretations and limited predictability. In this paper, we utilize a neural network to learn taste representation. Our formulation consists of two modules: a neural network (TasteNet) that learns taste parameters (e.g., time coefficient) as flexible functions of individual characteristics; and a multinomial logit (MNL) model with utility functions defined with expert knowledge. Taste parameters learned by the neural network are fed into the choice model and link the two modules. Our approach extends the L-MNL model (Sifringer et al., 2020) by allowing the neural network to learn the interactions between individual characteristics and alternative attributes. Moreover, we formalize and strengthen the interpretability condition - requiring realistic estimates of behavior indicators (e.g., value-of-time, elasticity) at the disaggregated level, which is crucial for a model to be suitable for scenario analysis and policy decisions. Through a unique network architecture and parameter transformation, we incorporate prior knowledge and guide the neural network to output realistic behavior indicators at the disaggregated level. We show that TasteNet-MNL reaches the ground-truth model's predictability and recovers the nonlinear taste functions on synthetic data. Its estimated value-of-time and choice elasticities at the individual level are close to the ground truth. On a publicly available Swissmetro dataset, TasteNet-MNL outperforms benchmarking MNLs and Mixed Logit model's predictability. It learns a broader spectrum of taste variations within the population and suggests a higher average value-of-time.
appendix boundary found by appendix_command · 98% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | B. Sifringer, V. Lurkin, and A. Alahi (2020) Enhancing discrete choice models with representation learning | 1.000 | 9 | 4 | 100% |
| 2 | Y. Bentz and D. Merunka (2000) Neural networks and the multinomial logit for brand choice modelling: a hybrid approach | 0.874 | 6 | 2 | 100% |
| 3 | S. van Cranenburgh and A. Alwosheel (2019) An artificial neural network based approach to investigate travellers’ decision rules | 0.811 | 4 | 2 | 100% |
| 4 | Y. Han (2019) Neural-embedded Choice Models | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 5 | P. M. West, P. L. Brockett, and L. L. Golden (1997) A comparative analysis of neural networks and statistical methods for predicting consumer choice | 0.644 | 4 | 1 | 100% |
| 6 | K. Hornik (1991) Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 7 | M. De Carvalho, M. Dougherty, A. Fowkes, and M. Wardman (1998) Forecasting travel demand: a comparison of logit and artificial neural network methods | 0.585 | 3 | 1 | 100% |
| 8 | X. Zhao, X. Yan, A. Yu, and P. Van Hentenryck (2018) Modeling stated preference for mobility-on-demand transit: A comparison of machine learning and logit models | 0.585 | 3 | 1 | 100% |
| 9 | A. Lhéritier, M. Bocamazo, T. Delahaye, and R. Acuna-Agost (2019) Airline itinerary choice modeling using machine learning | 0.511 | 2 | 1 | 100% |
| 10 | S. Wang, B. Mo, and J. Zhao (2020) Deep neural networks for choice analysis: Architecture design with alternative-specific utility functions | 0.511 | 2 | 1 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 53 scored citations.
arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.
| Citing paper | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Deep Learning for Choice Modeling | 0.843 | 5 | 3 |
| 2 | Combining Discrete Choice Models and Neural Networks through Embeddings: Formulation, Interpretability and Performance | 0.405 | 1 | 1 |