Bayesian Disaggregate and Aggregate Calibration of Path Logit Choice Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In transport demand analysis, the calibration of a model means estimation of its (endogenous) parameters from observed data with an inference statistical estimator. Indeed, these considerations apply to any choice behaviour model, such as those derived from Random Utility Theory or any other choice modelling theory. Calibration of choice models can be carried out from disaggregate vs. aggregate data, while inference statistical estimators can be specified through Bayesian vs. Classic (or Frequentist) approaches. In this paper, the resulting Bayesian or Classic disaggregate or aggregate calibration methods are discussed, analysed in detail, and compared from the mathematical point of view. These methods are applied to calibrate Logit choice models for describing path choice behaviour at national scale on a small sample. The Logit choice model can be derived from Random Utility Theory (or be considered an instance of the Bradley–Terry model). Path choice set definition is also discussed, and specialised indicators are used for result comparison. The main contributions of this study concern the use of two different estimation approaches, Bayesian vs. Classic, adopting and introducing some indicators of goodness of estimation. The results of this work, relating to the sample of users adopted, show that the Bayesian approach provides a better estimate than the Classic approach because the calibrated parameters are more stable, the specific constants of the alternatives decrease, and the resulting models show better values of clearly right indicator.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".