An analysis of machine learning approaches for enhancing decision-making in complex discrete choice tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discrete choice modeling is a common tool used for preference elicitation during policy-making, but this is typically done through parametric models. Machine learning can push the boundaries of discrete choice modeling for policy-based preference elicitation by adopting a data-driven approach for learning individual preferences. However, there is limited knowledge of how well machine learning methods can estimate individual discrete choice rules under individual heterogeneity, especially in the context of challenges often experienced during preference elicitation. This study evaluates four machine learning models (multinomial logistic regression, generalized additive model, twinned neural network, and Gaussian process) with respect to their capacity to learn and predict five choice rules that are important in the behavioral and social sciences (linear strong utility, monotonic strong utility, ideal point, lexicographic semiorder, and multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator). Monte Carlo experiments were performed to assess model performance when increasing a) the number of attributes in the choice alternatives, b) the number of training choice sets, and c) the choice rule’s determinism. The simulation results demonstrated that semi-parametric and non-parametric models generally outperform parametric models across all choice rules and experimental contexts. Model performance also generally improves by 6% to 96% and 0% to 55%, respectively, with an increase in training choice sets and choice rule determinism. A case study using real energy policy preference data was also conducted, where TNN performed best with a BIC of 13.351. This work demonstrated the viability and limitations of semi-parametric and non-parametric models in the context of policy-centric discrete choice modeling and showed how the choice task context should drive model selection. • Demonstrate that semi-parametric and non-parametric models improve the learning of discrete choice decision rules. • Show how increasing decision attributes affect machine learning model performance in choice analytics. • Illustrate the impact of limited choice data on predictive accuracy in preference-based decision-making. • Highlight the influence of choice rule randomness on model selection for discrete preference learning. • Recommend model choice based on context and specific challenges in discrete choice decision analysis.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".