On the Estimation of Discrete Choice Models to Capture Irrational Customer Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The random utility maximization model is by far the most adopted framework to estimate consumer choice behavior. However, behavioral economics has provided strong empirical evidence of irrational choice behaviors, such as halo effects, that are incompatible with this framework. Models belonging to the random utility maximization family may therefore not accurately capture such irrational behavior. Hence, more general choice models, overcoming such limitations, have been proposed. However, the flexibility of such models comes at the price of increased risk of overfitting. As such, estimating such models remains a challenge. In this work, we propose an estimation method for the recently proposed generalized stochastic preference choice model, which subsumes the family of random utility maximization models and is capable of capturing halo effects. In particular, we propose a column-generation method to gradually refine the discrete choice model based on partially ranked preference sequences. Extensive computational experiments indicate that our model, explicitly accounting for irrational preferences, can significantly boost the predictive accuracy on both synthetic and real-world data instances. Summary of Contribution: In this work, we propose an estimation method for the recently proposed generalized stochastic preference choice model, which subsumes the family of random utility maximization models and is capable of capturing halo effects. Specifically, we show how to use partially ranked preferences to efficiently model rational and irrational customer types from transaction data. Our estimation procedure is based on column generation, where relevant customer types are efficiently extracted by expanding a treelike data structure containing the customer behaviors. Furthermore, we propose a new dominance rule among customer types whose effect is to prioritize low orders of interactions among products. An extensive set of experiments assesses the predictive accuracy of the proposed approach by comparing it against rank-based methods with only rational preferences and with more general benchmarks from the literature. Our results show that accounting for irrational preferences can boost predictive accuracy by 12.5% on average when tested on a real-world data set from a large chain of grocery and drug stores. Copyright:
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".