IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2010.11644.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Theory-based residual neural networks: A synergy of discrete choice models and deep neural networks

Author

Listed:
  • Shenhao Wang
  • Baichuan Mo
  • Jinhua Zhao

Abstract

Researchers often treat data-driven and theory-driven models as two disparate or even conflicting methods in travel behavior analysis. However, the two methods are highly complementary because data-driven methods are more predictive but less interpretable and robust, while theory-driven methods are more interpretable and robust but less predictive. Using their complementary nature, this study designs a theory-based residual neural network (TB-ResNet) framework, which synergizes discrete choice models (DCMs) and deep neural networks (DNNs) based on their shared utility interpretation. The TB-ResNet framework is simple, as it uses a ($\delta$, 1-$\delta$) weighting to take advantage of DCMs' simplicity and DNNs' richness, and to prevent underfitting from the DCMs and overfitting from the DNNs. This framework is also flexible: three instances of TB-ResNets are designed based on multinomial logit model (MNL-ResNets), prospect theory (PT-ResNets), and hyperbolic discounting (HD-ResNets), which are tested on three data sets. Compared to pure DCMs, the TB-ResNets provide greater prediction accuracy and reveal a richer set of behavioral mechanisms owing to the utility function augmented by the DNN component in the TB-ResNets. Compared to pure DNNs, the TB-ResNets can modestly improve prediction and significantly improve interpretation and robustness, because the DCM component in the TB-ResNets stabilizes the utility functions and input gradients. Overall, this study demonstrates that it is both feasible and desirable to synergize DCMs and DNNs by combining their utility specifications under a TB-ResNet framework. Although some limitations remain, this TB-ResNet framework is an important first step to create mutual benefits between DCMs and DNNs for travel behavior modeling, with joint improvement in prediction, interpretation, and robustness.

Suggested Citation

  • Shenhao Wang & Baichuan Mo & Jinhua Zhao, 2020. "Theory-based residual neural networks: A synergy of discrete choice models and deep neural networks," Papers 2010.11644, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2010.11644
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2010.11644
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    2. Kenneth Train, 1980. "A Structured Logit Model of Auto Ownership and Mode Choice," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(2), pages 357-370.
    3. Edward L. Glaeser & Scott Duke Kominers & Michael Luca & Nikhil Naik, 2018. "Big Data And Big Cities: The Promises And Limitations Of Improved Measures Of Urban Life," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 114-137, January.
    4. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    7. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    8. Mozolin, M. & Thill, J. -C. & Lynn Usery, E., 2000. "Trip distribution forecasting with multilayer perceptron neural networks: A critical evaluation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 53-73, January.
    9. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
    10. Colin F. Camerer & Howard Kunreuther, 1989. "Decision processes for low probability events: Policy implications," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(4), pages 565-592.
    11. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    12. Dhami, Sanjit, 2016. "The Foundations of Behavioral Economic Analysis," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198715535.
    13. Yves Bentz & Dwight Merunka, 2000. "Neural networks and the multinomial logit for brand choice modelling: a hybrid approach," Post-Print hal-01822273, HAL.
    14. Wang, Shenhao & Wang, Qingyi & Zhao, Jinhua, 2020. "Multitask learning deep neural networks to combine revealed and stated preference data," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    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. Wang, Shenhao & Mo, Baichuan & Zhao, Jinhua, 2021. "Theory-based residual neural networks: A synergy of discrete choice models and deep neural networks," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 333-358.
    2. Wang, Shenhao & Zhao, Jinhua, 2019. "Risk preference and adoption of autonomous vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 215-229.
    3. Wang, Shenhao & Wang, Qingyi & Bailey, Nate & Zhao, Jinhua, 2021. "Deep neural networks for choice analysis: A statistical learning theory perspective," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 60-81.
    4. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    5. Arjan Verschoor & Ben D’Exelle, 2022. "Probability weighting for losses and for gains among smallholder farmers in Uganda," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 223-258, February.
    6. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    7. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Samuel D. Bell & Maik Kecinski & Tongzhe Li & Simanti Banerjee & Leah H. Palm‐Forster & David Pannell, 2020. "Agricultural Adoption and Behavioral Economics: Bridging the Gap," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 54-66, March.
    8. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Ted O'Donoghue & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2013. "The Nature of Risk Preferences: Evidence from Insurance Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2499-2529, October.
    9. Immanuel Lampe & Daniel Würtenberger, 2019. "Loss Aversion And The Demand For Index Insurance," Working Papers on Finance 1907, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.
    10. Quang Nguyen, 2011. "Does nurture matter: Theory and experimental investigation on the effect of working environment on risk and time preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 245-270, December.
    11. Anna Conte & Peter G Moffatt & Mary Riddel, 2019. "The Multivariate Random Preference Estimatorfor Switching Multiple Price List Data," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2019-04, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    12. Anna Conte & Peter G. Moffatt & Mary Riddel, 2015. "Heterogeneity in risk attitudes across domains: A bivariate random preference approach," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-10, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    13. Dorian Jullien, 2016. "Under Uncertainty, Over Time and Regarding Other People: Rationality in 3D," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-20, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    14. Doidge, Mary & Feng, Hongli & Hennessy, David A., 2018. "Farmers’ valuation of changes to crop insurance coverage level – a test of third generation prospect theory," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274478, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Lampe, Immanuel & Würtenberger, Daniel, 2020. "Loss aversion and the demand for index insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 678-693.
    16. Thomas Sproul & Clayton P. Michaud, 2017. "Heterogeneity in loss aversion: evidence from field elicitations," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 77(1), pages 196-216, May.
    17. Freudenreich, Hanna & Musshoff, Oliver & Wiercinski, Ben, 2017. "The Relationship between Farmers' Shock Experiences and their Uncertainty Preferences - Experimental Evidence from Mexico," GlobalFood Discussion Papers 256212, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, GlobalFood, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development.
    18. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Faure, Corinne & Meissner, Thomas, 2016. "Making the implicit explicit: A look inside the implicit discount rate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 321-331.
    19. Galarza, Francisco, 2009. "Choices under Risk in Rural Peru," MPRA Paper 17708, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Xiaodong Du & Hongli Feng & David A. Hennessy, 2017. "Rationality of Choices in Subsidized Crop Insurance Markets," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 732-756.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2010.11644. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.