IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ortrsc/v39y2005i2p160-181.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Dynamic Kernel Logit Model for the Analysis of Longitudinal Discrete Choice Data: Properties and Computational Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Karthik K. Srinivasan

    () (BSB 235, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, Chennai 600036, India)

  • Hani S. Mahmassani

    () (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the application of the kernel logit formulation to model dynamic discrete choice data. A dynamic kernel logit (DKL) formulation with normal errors is presented to model unordered discrete choice panel data. Investigating the theoretical foundations of the kernel logit model, it is demonstrated that the mixed logit error structure converges in distribution asymptotically to a suitable multivariate normal error structure. This result provides support for both cross-sectional kernel logit (CKL) and DKL models with normal errors. The calibration, identification, and specification issues associated with the latter model are also discussed.The performance of the proposed DKL model is assessed from the perspective of computational efficiency and estimate accuracy relative to the multinomial probit (MNP) model using a series of numerical experiments. Complexity analysis reveals that the DKL has a lower computational complexity than the MNP frequency simulator, which has an exponential complexity. Thus, for choice situations with a large number of alternatives ( J ) in each time period, and/or large number of time periods ( T ), the DKL model is faster than the corresponding MNP by more than an order of magnitude. This is also confirmed by computational experiments conducted using 32 synthetic data sets. The computational performance of the DKL relative to MNP appears to be the result of a trade-off between the number of Monte-Carlo draws required, and the computational cost of each draw. With fewer than 25 alternatives ( JT ), the results suggest that it is more advantageous to use the probit model (MNP) compared to the DKL. There appears to be little advantage in applying the kernel logit formulation relative to the MNP to cross-sectional data with a few alternatives.Regarding computational accuracy, the numerical results suggest that the parameter estimates of both models (MNP and DKL) are comparable and close to the true values from which the data sets were generated. However, both DKL and MNP formulations may lead to the maximization of a nonconcave objective function, resulting in flat log-likelihood functions, and identification problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Karthik K. Srinivasan & Hani S. Mahmassani, 2005. "A Dynamic Kernel Logit Model for the Analysis of Longitudinal Discrete Choice Data: Properties and Computational Assessment," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 160-181, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ortrsc:v:39:y:2005:i:2:p:160-181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1040.0093
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1992. "On Efficiency of Methods of Simulated Moments and Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of Discrete Response Models," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(04), pages 518-552, December.
    2. Dansie, B. R., 1985. "Parameter estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 19(6), pages 526-528, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Rishin Roy & Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Sudeep Haldar, 1996. "A Framework for Investigating Habits, “The Hand of the Past,” and Heterogeneity in Dynamic Brand Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 280-299.
    5. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
    6. 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.
    7. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    8. C F Daganzo & Y Sheffi, 1982. "Multinomial probit with time-series data: unifying state dependence and serial correlation models," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 14(10), pages 1377-1388, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    11. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    12. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the Multinomial Probit Model," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1gf1t128, University of California Transportation Center.
    13. Bhat, Chandra R., 2001. "Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 677-693, August.
    14. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    15. Keane, Michael P, 1992. "A Note on Identification in the Multinomial Probit Model," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 10(2), pages 193-200, April.
    16. Geweke, John F. & Keane, Michael P. & Runkle, David E., 1997. "Statistical inference in the multinomial multiperiod probit model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 125-165, September.
    17. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    18. C F Daganzo & Y Sheffi, 1982. "Multinomial Probit with Time-Series Data: Unifying State Dependence and Serial Correlation Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 14(10), pages 1377-1388, October.
    19. Liu, Yu-Hsin & Mahmassani, Hani S., 2000. "Global maximum likelihood estimation procedure for multinomial probit (MNP) model parameters," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 419-449, June.
    20. Kitamura, Ryuichi, 1990. "Panel Analysis in Transportation Planning: An Overview," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt86v0f7zh, University of California Transportation Center.
    21. Horowitz, Joel L., 1991. "Reconsidering the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 433-438, December.
    22. Garrido, Rodrigo A. & Mahmassani, Hani S., 2000. "Forecasting freight transportation demand with the space-time multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 403-418, June.
    23. Bunch, David S., 1991. "Estimability in the multinomial probit model," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-12, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:inm:ortrsc:v:39:y:2005:i:2:p:160-181. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Matthew Walls). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.