EconBase
← All papers

Understanding the decision-making process of choice modellers

Gabriel Nova, Sander van Cranenburgh, Stephane Hess

arXiv 3 Nov 2024 · Econometrics · publishedJournal of Choice Modelling (2025) · 1 citations (OpenAlex)

arXiv:2411.01704 · PDF · DOI · OpenAlex · Extracted main text

Abstract

Discrete Choice Modelling serves as a robust framework for modelling human choice behaviour across various disciplines. Building a choice model is a semi structured research process that involves a combination of a priori assumptions, behavioural theories, and statistical methods. This complex set of decisions, coupled with diverse workflows, can lead to substantial variability in model outcomes. To better understand these dynamics, we developed the Serious Choice Modelling Game, which simulates the real world modelling process and tracks modellers' decisions in real time using a stated preference dataset. Participants were asked to develop choice models to estimate Willingness to Pay values to inform policymakers about strategies for reducing noise pollution. The game recorded actions across multiple phases, including descriptive analysis, model specification, and outcome interpretation, allowing us to analyse both individual decisions and differences in modelling approaches. While our findings reveal a strong preference for using data visualisation tools in descriptive analysis, it also identifies gaps in missing values handling before model specification. We also found significant variation in the modelling approach, even when modellers were working with the same choice dataset. Despite the availability of more complex models, simpler models such as Multinomial Logit were often preferred, suggesting that modellers tend to avoid complexity when time and resources are limited. Participants who engaged in more comprehensive data exploration and iterative model comparison tended to achieve better model fit and parsimony, which demonstrate that the methodological choices made throughout the workflow have significant implications, particularly when modelling outcomes are used for policy formulation.

Citation extraction

65
references
94
in-text mentions
65
distinct cited
4
self-citations
10,235
main-text words

appendix boundary found by appendix_titled_section at “Appendix” · 81% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.

Most heavily cited references

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.

ReferenceIntensityMentionsSectionsMain text
1Train, K.E (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation0.92843100%
2Ben-Akiva, M.E., Lerman, S.R (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. volume 90.87452100%
3Mariel, P., Hoyos, D., Meyerhoff, J., Czajkowski, M., Dekker, T., Gl… (2021) Environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments: Guidance on design, implementation and data analysis0.87452100%
4Beeramoole, P.B., Arteaga, C., Pinz, A., Haque, M.M., Paz, A (2023) Extensive hypothesis testing for estimation of mixed-logit models0.73732100%
5Parady, G., Ory, D., Walker, J (2021) The overreliance on statistical goodness-of-fit and under-reliance on model validation in discrete choice models: A review of va…0.73732100%
6Daly, A., Hess, S., de Jong, G (2012) Calculating errors for measures derived from choice modelling estimates self0.64422100%
7Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., Greene, W.H (2015) Applied choice analysis0.64422100%
8Hess, S., Daly, A (2024) Handbook of choice modelling self0.64422100%
9Louviere, J (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications0.64422100%
10McFadden, D (1974) The measurement of urban travel demand0.64422100%

Showing the top 10 of 65 scored citations.