Random regret minimization or random utility maximization: an exploratory analysis in the context of automobile fuel choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Interest in alternative behavioural paradigms to random utility maximization (RUM) has existed ever since the dominance of the RUM formulation. One alternative is known as random regret minimization (RRM), which suggests that when choosing between alternatives, decision makers aim to minimize anticipated regret. Although the idea of regret is not new, its incorporation into the same discrete choice framework of RUM is very recent. This paper is the first to apply the RRM‐model framework to model choice amongst durable goods. Specifically, we estimate and compare the RRM and RUM models in a stated choice context of choosing amongst vehicles fuelled with petrol, diesel and hybrid (associated with specific levels of fuel efficiency and engine capacity). The RRM model is found to achieve a marginally better fit (using a non‐nested test of differences) than its equally parsimonious RUM counterpart. As a second contribution, we derive a formulation for regret‐based elasticities and compare utility‐based and regret‐based elasticities in the context of stated vehicle type choices. We find that in the context of our choice data, mean estimates of elasticities are different for many of the attributes and alternatives. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".