IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transb/v34y2000i3p219-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Representation of heteroskedasticity in discrete choice models

Author

Listed:
  • Munizaga, Marcela A.
  • Heydecker, Benjamin G.
  • Ortúzar, Juan de Dios

Abstract

The Multinomial Logit, discrete choice model of transport demand, has several restrictions when compared with the more general Multinomial Probit model. The most famous of these are that unobservable components of utilities should be mutually independent and homoskedastic. Correlation can be accommodated to a certain extent by the Hierarchical Logit model, but the problem of heteroskedasticity has received less attention in the literature. We investigate the consequences of disregarding heteroskedasticity, and make some comparisons between models that can and those that cannot represent it. These comparisons, which use synthetic data with known characteristics, are made in terms of parameter recovery and estimates of response to policy changes. The Multinomial Logit, Hierarchical Logit, Single Element Nested Logit, Heteroskedastic Extreme Value Logit and Multinomial Probit models are tested using data that are consistent with various error structures; only the last three can represent heteroskedasticity explicitly. Two different kinds of heteroskedasticity are analysed: between options and between observations. The results show that in the first case, neither the Multinomial Logit nor the Single Element Nested Logit models can be used to estimate the response to policy changes accurately, but the Hierarchical Logit model performs surprisingly well. By contrast, in a certain case of discrete heteroskedasticity between observations, the simulation results show that in terms of response to policy variations the Multinomial Logit model performs as well as the theoretically correct Single Element Nested Logit and Multinomial Probit models. Furthermore, the Multinomial Logit Model recovered all parameters of the utility function accurately in this case. We conclude that the simpler members of the Logit family appear to be fairly robust with respect to some homoskedasticity violations, but that use of the more resource-intensive Multinomial Probit model is justified for handling the case of heteroskedasticity between options.

Suggested Citation

  • Munizaga, Marcela A. & Heydecker, Benjamin G. & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2000. "Representation of heteroskedasticity in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 219-240, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:34:y:2000:i:3:p:219-240
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191-2615(99)00022-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gaudry, Marc J. I. & Jara-Diaz, Sergio R. & Ortuzar, Juan de Dios, 1989. "Value of time sensitivity to model specification," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 151-158, April.
    2. Carlos F. Daganzo & Fernando Bouthelier & Yosef Sheffi, 1977. "Multinomial Probit and Qualitative Choice: A Computationally Efficient Algorithm," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 338-358, November.
    3. McFadden, Daniel, 1989. "A Method of Simulated Moments for Estimation of Discrete Response Models without Numerical Integration," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 995-1026, September.
    4. Bhat, Chandra R., 1998. "Accommodating flexible substitution patterns in multi-dimensional choice modeling: formulation and application to travel mode and departure time choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 455-466, September.
    5. Borsch-Supan, Axel & Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A., 1993. "Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited dependent variable models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 347-368, August.
    6. Williams, H. C. W. L. & Ortuzar, J. D., 1982. "Behavioural theories of dispersion and the mis-specification of travel demand models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 167-219, June.
    7. H C W L Williams, 1977. "On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 9(3), pages 285-344, March.
    8. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis & McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul, 1996. "Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 85-134.
    9. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    10. Bolduc, Denis, 1992. "Generalized autoregressive errors in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 155-170, April.
    11. Pakes, Ariel & Pollard, David, 1989. "Simulation and the Asymptotics of Optimization Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 1027-1057, September.
    12. Bolduc, Denis, 1999. "A practical technique to estimate multinomial probit models in transportation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 63-79, February.
    13. Bhat, Chandra R., 1995. "A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity travel mode choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 471-483, December.
    14. Stern, Steven, 1992. "A Method for Smoothing Simulated Moments of Discrete Probabilities in Multinomial Probit Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 943-952, July.
    15. Steckel, Joel H & Vanhonacker, Wilfried R, 1988. "A Heterogeneous Conditional Logit Model of Choice," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 6(3), pages 391-398, July.
    16. Daly, Andrew, 1987. "Estimating "tree" logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 251-267, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marisol Castro & Francisco Martínez & Marcela Munizaga, 2013. "Estimation of a constrained multinomial logit model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 563-581, May.
    2. Kalouptsidis, N. & Koutroumbas, K. & Psaraki, V., 2007. "Classification methods for random utility models with i.i.d. disturbances under the most probable alternative rule," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(3), pages 1778-1794, February.
    3. Angel Bujosa & Jaume Rosselló, 2013. "Climate change and summer mass tourism: the case of Spanish domestic tourism," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 363-375, March.
    4. Edeh, Hyacinth Onuorah & Gyimah-Brempong, Kwabena, 2014. "Determinants of Change and Household Responses to Food Insecurity: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 169750, Agricultural Economics Society.
    5. Elisabetta Cherchi & Cinzia Cirillo, 2014. "Understanding variability, habit and the effect of long period activity plan in modal choices: a day to day, week to week analysis on panel data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 41(6), pages 1245-1262, November.
    6. Tsamboulas, Dimitrios A., 2001. "Parking fare thresholds: a policy tool," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 115-124, April.
    7. Chung, Yi-Shih & Lu, Kuan-Hung, 2020. "Investigating passenger behavior in airport terminals with multisource data: Recall bias and time budget effects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 410-429.
    8. Ke Wang & Chandra R. Bhat & Xin Ye, 2023. "A multinomial probit analysis of shanghai commute mode choice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1471-1495, August.
    9. Tinessa, Fiore, 2021. "Closed-form random utility models with mixture distributions of random utilities: Exploring finite mixtures of qGEV models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 262-288.
    10. Cantillo, Víctor & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios, 2005. "A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with explicit attribute thresholds of perception," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 641-657, August.
    11. Cantillo, Víctor & Amaya, Johanna & Ortúzar, J. de D., 2010. "Thresholds and indifference in stated choice surveys," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 753-763, July.
    12. Espino, Raquel & de Dios Ortúzar, Juan & Román, Concepción, 2007. "Understanding suburban travel demand: Flexible modelling with revealed and stated choice data," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 899-912, December.
    13. Ginker, Tim & Lieberman, Offer, 2017. "Robustness of binary choice models to conditional heteroscedasticity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 130-134.
    14. Tsai, Rung-Ching & Bockenholt, Ulf, 2002. "Two-level linear paired comparison models: estimation and identifiability issues," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 429-449, July.
    15. Cantillo, Víctor & Heydecker, Benjamin & de Dios Ortúzar, Juan, 2006. "A discrete choice model incorporating thresholds for perception in attribute values," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 807-825, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. GRAMMIG, Joachim & HUJER, Reinhard & SCHEIDLER, Michael, 2001. "The econometrics of airline network management," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2001055, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis A. & Ruud, Paul A., 1986. "Classical estimation methods for LDV models using simulation," Handbook of Econometrics, in: R. F. Engle & D. McFadden (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 40, pages 2383-2441, Elsevier.
    3. Bolduc, Denis & Kaci, Mustapha, 1993. "Estimation des modèles probit polytomiques : un survol des techniques," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 69(3), pages 161-191, septembre.
    4. Daniel Ackerberg, 2009. "A new use of importance sampling to reduce computational burden in simulation estimation," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 343-376, December.
    5. Kenneth Train, "undated". "Simulation Methods for Probit and Related Models Based on Convenient Error Partitioning," Working Papers _009, University of California at Berkeley, Econometrics Laboratory Software Archive.
    6. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva & Denis Bolduc, 2007. "Identification of parameters in normal error component logit-mixture (NECLM) models," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(6), pages 1095-1125.
    7. Baltas, George & Doyle, Peter, 2001. "Random utility models in marketing research: a survey," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 115-125, February.
    8. Can, Vo Van, 2013. "Estimation of travel mode choice for domestic tourists to Nha Trang using the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 149-159.
    9. Denis Bolduc, "undated". "A Fast Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation Technique for NMP Models," Computing in Economics and Finance 1997 155, Society for Computational Economics.
    10. Vassilis A. Hajivassiliou, 1991. "Simulation Estimation Methods for Limited Dependent Variable Models," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1007, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    11. Kamhon Kan & Chihwa Kao, 2005. "Simulation-Based Two-Step Estimation with Endogenous Regressors," Center for Policy Research Working Papers 76, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.
    12. Ziegler, Andreas, 2001. "Simulated z-tests in multinomial probit models," ZEW Discussion Papers 01-53, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    13. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1997. "Simulated maximum likelihood estimation of dynamic discrete choice statistical models some Monte Carlo results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 1-35.
    14. Sandor, Zsolt & Andras, P.Peter, 2004. "Alternative sampling methods for estimating multivariate normal probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 207-234, June.
    15. Yannis M. Ioannides & Vassilis A. Hajivassiliou, 2007. "Unemployment and liquidity constraints," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 479-510.
    16. Sándor, Z. & András, P., 2003. "Alternate Samplingmethods for Estimating Multivariate Normal Probabilities," Econometric Institute Research Papers EI 2003-05, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics (ESE), Econometric Institute.
    17. Inkmann, Joachim, 2000. "Misspecified heteroskedasticity in the panel probit model: A small sample comparison of GMM and SML estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 227-259, August.
    18. Hajivassiliou, Vassilis & McFadden, Daniel & Ruud, Paul, 1996. "Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1-2), pages 85-134.
    19. Vijverberg, Wim P. M., 1997. "Monte Carlo evaluation of multivariate normal probabilities," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 76(1-2), pages 281-307.
    20. Koppelman, Frank S. & Wen, Chieh-Hua, 2000. "The paired combinatorial logit model: properties, estimation and application," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 75-89, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:34:y:2000:i:3:p:219-240. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/548/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.