Relative efficiency appraisal of discrete choice modeling algorithms using small-scale maximum likelihood estimator through empirically tailored computing environment
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
Discrete choice models are widely used in multiple sectors such as transportation, health, energy, and marketing, etc., where the model estimation is usually carried out by using commercial software. Nonetheless, tailored computer codes offer modellers greater flexibility and control of unique modelling situation. Aligned with empirically tailored computing environment, this research discusses the relative performance of six different algorithms of a discrete choice model using three key performance measures: convergence time, number of iterations, and iteration time. The computer codes are developed by using Visual Basic Application (VBA). Maximum likelihood function (MLF) is formulated and the mathematical relationships of gradient and Hessian matrix are analytically derived to carry out the estimation process. The estimated parameter values clearly suggest that convergence criterion and initial guessing of parameters are the two critical factors in determining the overall estimation performance of a custom-built discrete choice model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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