Random regret minimization or random utility maximization: an exploratory analysis in the context of automobile fuel choice
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
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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