IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2606.06638.html

Consistent estimation in logit models using historical choices as practical consideration set

Author

Listed:
  • C. Angelo Guevara

Abstract

A key challenge in choice modeling lies in specifying the consideration set, the subset of alternatives that individuals actually evaluate when making choices, which is unobserved (latent) to the researcher. The classical homo economicus assumption posits that individuals assess the full universal set of alternatives, a behaviorally implausible premise. Practical options include directly asking individuals, which introduces behavioral biases; treating the consideration set as a latent construct, requiring full enumeration and strong identification assumptions; or relying on ad hoc heuristics that attempt to replicate how individuals form these sets or on non-parametric methods. Recently, some researchers have used historical choices as practical consideration set, an approach made increasingly feasible by the availability of passive data sources such as smartcards, mobile phone records, and scanner data. This article provides a formal demonstration of a sufficient condition, along with Monte Carlo evidence, showing that, under a Logit data-generating process with homogeneous choice probabilities across instances, defining a practical consideration set based on historical choices yields consistent parameter estimates. The demonstration is based on a reinterpretation of the sampling-of-alternatives theorem, viewing historical choices as draws from the true consideration set, and showing that under the stated assumptions, the uniform conditioning property holds. The article concludes by discussing the practical implications of this result and potential extensions to other modeling frameworks and assumptions.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Angelo Guevara, 2026. "Consistent estimation in logit models using historical choices as practical consideration set," Papers 2606.06638, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2606.06638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.06638
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.
    2. Gibbard, Peter, 2021. "Disentangling preferences and limited attention: Random-utility models with consideration sets," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    3. Henriquez-Jara, Bastian & Guevara, C. Angelo, 2025. "An Experience-Based Choice Model (EBCM): Formulation, identification, behavioural insights and well-being assessment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    4. Paola Manzini & Marco Mariotti, 2014. "Stochastic Choice and Consideration Sets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 1153-1176, May.
    5. Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E., 2013. "Sampling of alternatives in Logit Mixture models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 185-198.
    6. Guevara, C. Angelo & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E., 2013. "Sampling of alternatives in Multivariate Extreme Value (MEV) models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 31-52.
    7. C. Angelo Guevara & Caspar G. Chorus & Moshe E. Ben-Akiva, 2016. "Sampling of Alternatives in Random Regret Minimization Models," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(1), pages 306-321, February.
    8. Ikki Kim & Hyoung-Chul Kim & Dong-Jeong Seo & Jung In Kim, 2020. "Calibration of a transit route choice model using revealed population data of smartcard in a multimodal transit network," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2179-2202, October.
    9. Levon Barseghyan & Maura Coughlin & Francesca Molinari & Joshua C. Teitelbaum, 2021. "Heterogeneous Choice Sets and Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(5), pages 2015-2048, September.
    10. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    11. Hicks, Robert L. & Holland, Daniel S. & Kuriyama, Peter T. & Schnier, Kurt E., 2020. "Choice sets for spatial discrete choice models in data rich environments," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Jacqueline Arriagada & C. Angelo Guevara & Marcela Munizaga & Song Gao, 2025. "An experiential learning-based transit route choice model using large-scale smart-card data," Transportation, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1543-1568, August.
    13. Marisol Castro & Francisco Martínez & Marcela Munizaga, 2013. "Estimation of a constrained multinomial logit model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 563-581, May.
    14. Swait, Joffre & Ben-Akiva, Moshe, 1987. "Incorporating random constraints in discrete models of choice set generation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 91-102, April.
    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. Crawford, Gregory S. & Griffith, Rachel & Iaria, Alessandro, 2021. "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 222(1), pages 4-43.
    2. Yao, Rui & Bekhor, Shlomo, 2022. "A variational autoencoder approach for choice set generation and implicit perception of alternatives in choice modeling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 273-294.
    3. C. Angelo Guevara, 2022. "A Note on "A survey of preference estimation with unobserved choice set heterogeneity" by Gregory S. Crawford, Rachel Griffith, and Alessandro Iaria," Papers 2205.00852, arXiv.org.
    4. Kovach, Matthew & Suleymanov, Elchin, 2023. "Reference dependence and random attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 421-441.
    5. Tsoleridis, Panagiotis & Choudhury, Charisma F. & Hess, Stephane, 2022. "Utilising activity space concepts to sampling of alternatives for mode and destination choice modelling of discretionary activities," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. Kai Wang, 2026. "Random Utility Model with Endogenously Assigned Menus," Papers 2607.08218, arXiv.org.
    7. Dekker, Thijs & Bansal, Prateek & Huo, Jinghai, 2025. "Revisiting McFadden’s correction factor for sampling of alternatives in multinomial logit and mixed multinomial logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    8. Ante Sterc, 2022. "Limited Consideration in the Investment Fund Choice," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp729, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    9. Tsoleridis, Panagiotis & Choudhury, Charisma F. & Hess, Stephane, 2023. "Probabilistic choice set formation incorporating activity spaces into the context of mode and destination choice modelling," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    10. Leite Mariante, Gabriel & Ma, Tai-Yu & Van Acker, Véronique, 2018. "Modeling discretionary activity location choice using detour factors and sampling of alternatives for mixed logit models," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 151-165.
    11. Takeshi Fukasawa, 2022. "The Biases in Applying Static Demand Models under Dynamic Demand," Discussion Paper Series DP2022-18, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University, revised Jul 2022.
    12. Bhat, Chandra R., 2015. "A comprehensive dwelling unit choice model accommodating psychological constructs within a search strategy for consideration set formation," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 161-188.
    13. Allen, Roy, 2026. "Exogenous consideration and extended random utility," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    14. Azrieli, Yaron & Rehbeck, John N., 0. "Marginal stochastic choice," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society.
    15. Kashaev, Nail & Aguiar, Victor H., 2022. "A random attention and utility model," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    16. Molinari, Francesca, 2020. "Microeconometrics with partial identification," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Steven N. Durlauf & Lars Peter Hansen & James J. Heckman & Rosa L. Matzkin (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 7, chapter 0, pages 355-486, Elsevier.
    17. Helmers, Christian & Krishnan, Pramila & Patnam, Manasa, 2019. "Attention and saliency on the internet: Evidence from an online recommendation system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 216-242.
    18. Melstrom, Richard T., "undated". "The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258281, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Melstrom, Richard T., 2017. "Where to drill? The petroleum industry's response to an endangered species listing," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 320-327.
    20. Levon Barseghyan & Francesca Molinari & Matthew Thirkettle, 2021. "Discrete Choice under Risk with Limited Consideration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(6), pages 1972-2006, June.

    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:2606.06638. 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: https://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.