In economics, discrete choice problems involve choices between two or more discrete alternatives, such as entering or not entering the labor market, or choosing between modes of transport. Such choices contrast with standard consumption models in which the quantity of each good consumed is assumed to be a continuous variable. In the continuous case, calculus methods (e.g. first-order conditions) can be used to determine the optimum, and demand can be modeled using regression analysis. On the other hand, discrete choice analysis examines situations in which the potential outcomes are discrete, such that the optimum is not characterized by standard first-order conditions. Loosely, regression analysis examines “how much” while discrete choice analysis examines “which.” However, discrete choice analysis can be and has been used to examine the chosen quantity in particular situations, such as the number of vehicles a household chooses to own [1] and the number of minutes of telecommunications service a customer decides to use.[2]
Discrete choice models are statistical procedures that model choices made by people among a finite set of alternatives. The models have been used to examine, e.g., the choice of which car to buy,[1][3] where to go to college,[4] , which mode of transport (car, bus, rail) to take to work[5] among numerous other applications. Discrete choice models are also used to examine choices by organizations, such as firms or government agencies. In the discussion below, the decision-making unit is assumed to be a person, though the concepts are applicable more generally. Daniel McFadden won the Nobel prize in 2000 for his pioneering work in developing the theoretical basis for discrete choice.
Discrete choice models statistically relate the choice made by each person to the attributes of the person and the attributes of the alternatives available to the person. For example, the choice of which car a person buys is statistically related to the person’s income and age as well as to price, fuel efficiency, size, and other attributes of each available car. The models estimate the probability that a person chooses a particular alternative. The models are often used to forecast how people’s choices will change under changes in demographics and/or attributes of the alternatives.
Contents
|
Discrete choice models take many forms, including: Binary Logit, Binary Probit, Multinomial Logit, Conditional Logit, Multinomial Probit, Nested Logit, Generalized Extreme Value Models, Mixed Logit, and Exploded Logit. All of these models have the features described below in common.
The choice set is the set of alternatives that are available to the person. For a discrete choice model, the choice set must meet three requirements:
Different people may have different choice sets, depending on their circumstances. For instance, Toyota-owned Scion is not sold in Canada as of 2009, so new car buyers in Canada face different choice sets from those of American consumers.
A discrete choice model specifies the probability that a person chooses a particular alternative, with the probability expressed as a function of observed variables that relate to the alternatives and the person. In its general form, the probability that person n chooses alternative i is expressed as:
where
In the mode of transport example above, the attributes of modes (xni), such as travel time and cost, and the characteristics of consumer (sn), such as annual income, age, and gender, can be used to calculate choice probabilities. The attributes of the alternatives can differ over people; e.g., cost and time for travel to work by car, bus, and rail are different for each person depending on the location of home and work of that person.
Properties:
Different models (i.e. different function G) have different properties. Prominent models are introduced below.
Discrete choice models can be derived from utility theory. This derivation is useful for three reasons:
Uni is the utility (or net benefit or well-being) that person n obtains from choosing alternative i. The behavior of the person is utility-maximizing: person n chooses the alternative that provides the highest utility. The choice of the person is designated by dummy variables, yni, for each alternative:
Consider now the researcher who is examining the choice. The person’s choice depends on many factors, some of which the researcher observes and some of which the researcher does not. The utility that the person obtains from choosing an alternative is decomposed into a part that depends on variables that the researcher observes and a part that depends on variables that the researcher does not observe. In a linear form, this decomposition is expressed as
where
The choice probability is then
Given β, the choice probability is the probability that the random terms, εnj − εni (which are random from the researcher’s perspective, since the researcher does not observe them) are below the respective quantities . Different choice models (i.e. different specifications of G) arise from different distributions of εni for all i and different treatments of β.
The probability that a person chooses a particular alternative is determined by comparing the utility of choosing that alternative to the utility of choosing other alternatives:
As the last term indicates, the choice probability depends only on the difference in utilities between alternatives, not on the absolute level of utilities. Equivalently, adding a constant to the utilities of all the alternatives does not change the choice probabilities.
Since utility has no units, it is necessary to normalize the scale of utilities. The scale of utility is often defined by the variance of the error term in discrete choice models. This variance may differ depending on the characteristics of the dataset, such as when or where the data are collected. Normalization of the variance therefore affects the interpretation of parameters estimated across diverse datasets.
Discrete choice models can first be classified according to the number of available alternatives.
Multinomial choice models can further be classified according to the model specification:
In addition, specific forms of the models are available for examining rankings of alternatives (i.e., first choice, second choice, third choice, etc.) and for ratings data.
Details for each model are provided in the following sections.
Un is the utility (or net benefit) that person n obtains from taking an action (as opposed to not taking the action). The utility the person obtains from taking the action depends on the characteristics of the person, some of which are observed by the researcher and some are not:
The person takes the action, yn = 1, if Un > 0. The unobserved term, εn , is assumed to have a logistic distribution.
The specification is written succinctly as:
Then the probability of taking the action is
The description of the model is the same as model A, except the unobserved terms are distributed standard normal instead of logistic.
Then the probability of taking the action is
Uni is the utility person n obtains from choosing alternative i. The utility of each alternative depends on the attributes of the alternatives interacted perhaps with the attributes of the person. The unobserved terms are assumed to have an extreme value distribution.[nb 1]
which gives this expression for the probability
We can relate this specification to model A above, which is also binary logit. In particular, Pn1 can also be expressed as
Note that if two error terms are iid extreme value,[nb 1] their difference is distributed logistic, which is the basis for the equivalence of the two specifications.
The description of the model is the same as model C, except the unobserved terms are distributed standard normal instead of logistic.
Then the probability of taking the action is
The utility for all alternatives depends on the same variables, sn, but the coefficients are different for different alternatives:
The choice probability takes the form
The utility for each alternative depends on attributes of that alternative, interacted perhaps with attributes of the person:
The choice probability takes the form
Note that model E can be expressed in the same form as model F by appropriate respecification of variables.
A standard logit model is not always suitable, since it assumes that there is no correlation in unobserved factors over alternatives. This lack of correlation translates into a particular pattern of substitution among alternatives that might not always be realistic in a given situation. This pattern of substitution is often called the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) property of standard logit models. See the Red Bus/Blue Bus example [10] or path choice example.[11] A number of models have been proposed to allow correlation over alternatives and more general substitution patterns:
The following sections describe Nested Logit, GEV, Probit, and Mixed Logit models in detail.
The model is the same as model F except that the unobserved component of utility is correlated over alternatives rather than being independent over alternatives.
The model is the same as model G except that the unobserved terms are distributed jointly normal, which allows any pattern of correlation and heteroscedasticity:
The choice probability is
Mixed Logit models have become increasingly popular in recent years for several reasons. First, the model allows β to be random in addition to ε. The randomness in β accommodates random taste variation over people and correlation across alternatives that generates flexible substitution patterns. Second, the advent in simulation has made approximation of the model fairly easy. In addition, McFadden and Train[18] have shown that any true choice model can be approximated, to any degree of accuracy by a mixed logit with appropriate specification of explanatory variables and distribution of coefficients.
The choice probability is
The integral for this choice probability does not have a closed form, so the probability is approximated by simulation. Also see Mixed logit for further details.
The models described above are adapted to accommodate rankings and ratings data.
In many situations, a person's ranking of alternatives is observed, rather than just their chosen alternative. For example, a person who has bought a new car might be asked what he/she would have bought if that car was not offered, which provides information on the person's second choice in addition to their first choice. Or, in a survey, a respondent might be asked:
The models described above can be adapted to account for rankings beyond the first choice. The most prominent model for rankings data is the exploded logit and its mixed version.
Under the same assumptions as for a standard logit (model F), the probability for a ranking of the alternatives is a product of standard logits. The model is called "exploded logit" because the choice situation that is usually represented as one logit formula for the chosen alternative is expanded ("exploded") to have a separate logit formula for each ranked alternative. The exploded logit model is the product of standard logit models with the choice set decreasing as each alternative is ranked and leaves the set of available choices in the subsequent choice.
Without loss of generality, the alternatives can be relabeled to represent the person's ranking, such that alternative 1 is the first choice, 2 the second choice, etc. The choice probability of ranking J alternatives as 1, 2, …, J is then
As with standard logit, the exploded logit model assumes no correlation in unobserved factors over alternatives. The exploded logit can be generalized, in the same way as the standard logit is generalized, to accommodate correlations among alternatives and random taste variation. The "mixed exploded logit" model is obtained by probability of the ranking, given above, for Lni in the mixed logit model (model I).
This model is also known in econometrics as the rank ordered logit model and it was introduced in that field by Beggs, Cardell and Hausman in 1981[21] · [22]. One application is the Combes et alii paper explaining the ranking of candidates to become professor[22]. Is is also known as Plackett–Luce model in biomedical literature[22].
In survey, respondents are often asked to give ratings, such as:
Or,
A multinomial discrete-choice model can examine the responses to these questions (model G, model H, model I). However, these models are derived under the concept that the respondent obtains some utility for each possible answer and gives the answer that provides the greatest utility. It might be more natural to think that the respondent has some latent measure or index associated with the question and answers in response to how high this measure is. Ordered logit and ordered probit models are derived under this concept.
Let Un represent the strength of survey respondent n’s feelings or opinion on the survey subject. Assume that there are cutoffs of the level of the opinion in choosing particular response. For instance, in the example of the helping people facing foreclosure, the person chooses
for some real numbers a, b, c, d.
Defining Logistic, then the probability of each possible response is:
and so on up to
The parameters of the model are the coefficients β and the cut-off points a − d, one of which must be normalized for identification. When there are only two possible responses, the ordered logit is the same a binary logit (model A), with one cut-off point normalized to zero.
The description of the model is the same as model K, except the unobserved terms are distributed standard normal instead of logistic.
Then the choice probabilities are
and so on. where Φ(.) is the cumulative distribution function of standard normal.