Travel Choice Behavior Model Based on Mental Accounting of Travel Time and Cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the utility calculation principle of travelers from the perspective of mental accounting and proposes a travel choice behavior model that considers travel time and cost (MA-TC model). Then, a questionnaire is designed to analyze the results of the travel choice under different decision-making scenarios. Model parameters are estimated using nonlinear regression, and the utility calculation principles are developed under different hypothetical scenarios. Then, new expressions for the utility function under deterministic and risky conditions are presented. For verification, the nonlinear correlation coefficient and hit rate are used to compare the proposed MA-TC model with the other two models: (1) the classical prospect theory with travel time and cost (PT-TC model) and (2) mental accounting based on the original hedonic editing criterion (MA-HE model). The results show that model parameters under deterministic and risky conditions are pretty different. In the deterministic case, travelers have similar sensitivity to the change in gain and loss of travel time and cost. The prediction accuracy of the MA-TC model is 3% lower than the PT-TC model and 6% higher than the MA-HE model. Under risky conditions, travelers are more sensitive to the change in loss than to the change in gain. Additionally, travelers tend to overestimate small probabilities and underestimate high probabilities when losing more than when gaining. The prediction accuracy of the MA-TC model is 2% higher than the PT-TC model and 6% higher than the MA-HE 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".