Sequential and Simultaneous Estimation of Hybrid Discrete Choice Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formulation of hybrid discrete choice models, including both observable alternative attributes and latent variables associated with attitudes and perceptions, has become a topic of discussion once more. To estimate models integrating both kinds of variables, two methods have been proposed: the sequential approach, in which the latent variables are built before their integration with the traditional explanatory variables in the choice model and the simultaneous approach, in which both processes are done together, albeit with a sophisticated but fairly complex treatment. Here both approaches are applied to estimate hybrid choice models by using two data sets: one from the Santiago Panel (an urban mode choice context with many alternatives) and another consisting of synthetic data. Differences between both approaches were found as well as similarities not found in earlier studies. Even when both approaches result in unbiased estimators, problems arise when valuations are obtained such as the value of time for forecasting and policy evaluation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it