MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123501320 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2928

Random Projection Estimation of Discrete-Choice Models with Large Choice Sets

2018· article· en· W3123501320 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Khai Chiong, Matthew Shum

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsEstimatorLemma (botany)Discrete choiceDimensionality reductionDimension (graph theory)Projection (relational algebra)Monotonic functionMathematicsMultinomial distributionAggregate (composite)Pairwise comparisonMoment (physics)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceEconometricsAlgorithmStatisticsArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce random projection, an important dimension-reduction tool from machine learning, for the estimation of aggregate discrete-choice models with high-dimensional choice sets. Initially, high-dimensional data are projected into a lower-dimensional Euclidean space using random projections. Subsequently, estimation proceeds using cyclical monotonicity moment inequalities implied by the multinomial choice model; the estimation procedure is semiparametric and does not require explicit distributional assumptions to be made regarding the random utility errors. Our procedure is justified via the Johnson–Lindenstrauss lemma—the pairwise distances between data points are preserved through random projections. The estimator works well in simulations and in an application to a supermarket scanner data set. This paper was accepted by Juanjuan Zhang, marketing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement ScienceSame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207