IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jstats/v7y2024i1p12-202d1341711.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility in Time Description in Priority Best–Worst Discrete Choice Models: An Empirical Evaluation Using Flynn’s Data

Author

Listed:
  • Sasanka Adikari

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA)

  • Norou Diawara

    (Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA)

Abstract

Discrete choice models (DCMs) are applied in many fields and in the statistical modelling of consumer behavior. This paper focuses on a form of choice experiment, best–worst scaling in discrete choice experiments (DCEs), and the transition probability of a choice of a consumer over time. The analysis was conducted by using simulated data (choice pairs) based on data from Flynn’s (2007) ‘Quality of Life Experiment’. Most of the traditional approaches assume the choice alternatives are mutually exclusive over time, which is a questionable assumption. We introduced a new copula-based model (CO-CUB) for the transition probability, which can handle the dependent structure of best–worst choices while applying a very practical constraint. We used a conditional logit model to calculate the utility at consecutive time points and spread it to future time points under dynamic programming. We suggest that the CO-CUB transition probability algorithm is a novel way to analyze and predict choices in future time points by expressing human choice behavior. The numerical results inform decision making, help formulate strategy and learning algorithms under dynamic utility in time for best–worst DCEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Sasanka Adikari & Norou Diawara, 2024. "Utility in Time Description in Priority Best–Worst Discrete Choice Models: An Empirical Evaluation Using Flynn’s Data," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:1:p:12-202:d:1341711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/1/12/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/1/12/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eugene A. Feinberg & Adam Shwartz, 1994. "Markov Decision Models with Weighted Discounted Criteria," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 152-168, February.
    2. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    3. Flynn, Terry N. & Louviere, Jordan J. & Peters, Tim J. & Coast, Joanna, 2007. "Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 171-189, January.
    4. Genest, Christian & Nešlehová, Johanna, 2007. "A Primer on Copulas for Count Data," ASTIN Bulletin, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(2), pages 475-515, November.
    5. D'Elia, Angela & Piccolo, Domenico, 2005. "A mixture model for preferences data analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 917-934, June.
    6. Richard Bellman, 1954. "On some applications of the theory of dynamic programming to logistics," Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 141-153, June.
    7. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    8. Richard Bellman, 1954. "Some Applications of the Theory of Dynamic Programming---A Review," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 275-288, August.
    9. Jose Blanchet & Guillermo Gallego & Vineet Goyal, 2016. "A Markov Chain Approximation to Choice Modeling," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 64(4), pages 886-905, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Hess, Stephane & Kjær, Trine, 2016. "Asymmetric information and user orientation in general practice: Exploring the agency relationship in a best–worst scaling study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 115-130.
    2. Emily Lancsar & Peter Burge, 2014. "Choice modelling research in health economics," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 28, pages 675-687, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Xiaoyue Li & John M. Mulvey, 2023. "Optimal Portfolio Execution in a Regime-switching Market with Non-linear Impact Costs: Combining Dynamic Program and Neural Network," Papers 2306.08809, arXiv.org.
    4. Mahmoud Mahfouz & Angelos Filos & Cyrine Chtourou & Joshua Lockhart & Samuel Assefa & Manuela Veloso & Danilo Mandic & Tucker Balch, 2019. "On the Importance of Opponent Modeling in Auction Markets," Papers 1911.12816, arXiv.org.
    5. Wolf, Christopher A. & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2012. "Dairy Farmer Preferences for 2012 Farm Bill," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124866, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Guillermo Gallego & Haengju Lee, 2020. "Callable products with dependent demands," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 67(3), pages 185-200, April.
    7. Muunda, Emmanuel & Mtimet, Nadhem & Schneider, Franziska & Wanyoike, Francis & Dominguez-Salas, Paula & Alonso, Silvia, 2021. "Could the new dairy policy affect milk allocation to infants in Kenya? A best-worst scaling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Flynn, Terry, 2007. "Several methods to investigate relative attribute impact in stated preference experiments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 1738-1753, April.
    9. Boute, Robert N. & Gijsbrechts, Joren & van Jaarsveld, Willem & Vanvuchelen, Nathalie, 2022. "Deep reinforcement learning for inventory control: A roadmap," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 401-412.
    10. Dawei Chen & Fangxu Mo & Ye Chen & Jun Zhang & Xinyu You, 2022. "Optimization of Ramp Locations along Freeways: A Dynamic Programming Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-13, August.
    11. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    12. Kameng Nip & Zhenbo Wang & Zizhuo Wang, 2021. "Assortment Optimization under a Single Transition Choice Model," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(7), pages 2122-2142, July.
    13. Harrold, Daniel J.B. & Cao, Jun & Fan, Zhong, 2022. "Data-driven battery operation for energy arbitrage using rainbow deep reinforcement learning," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 238(PC).
    14. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    15. Bartłomiej Kocot & Paweł Czarnul & Jerzy Proficz, 2023. "Energy-Aware Scheduling for High-Performance Computing Systems: A Survey," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, January.
    16. Wadi Khalid Anuar & Lai Soon Lee & Hsin-Vonn Seow & Stefan Pickl, 2021. "A Multi-Depot Vehicle Routing Problem with Stochastic Road Capacity and Reduced Two-Stage Stochastic Integer Linear Programming Models for Rollout Algorithm," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(13), pages 1-44, July.
    17. Ningyuan Chen & Guillermo Gallego & Zhuodong Tang, 2019. "The Use of Binary Choice Forests to Model and Estimate Discrete Choices," Papers 1908.01109, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    18. Antoine Désir & Vineet Goyal & Danny Segev & Chun Ye, 2020. "Constrained Assortment Optimization Under the Markov Chain–based Choice Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(2), pages 698-721, February.
    19. Aydın Alptekinoğlu & John H. Semple, 2021. "Heteroscedastic Exponomial Choice," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 69(3), pages 841-858, May.
    20. Erdem, Seda & Rigby, Dan & Wossink, Ada, 2012. "Using best–worst scaling to explore perceptions of relative responsibility for ensuring food safety," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 661-670.

    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:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:1:p:12-202:d:1341711. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.