IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2607.13314.html

Tabular Foundation Models for Discrete Choice Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Liu Liu
  • Dan Zhang

Abstract

Tabular foundation models (TFMs) generate predictions on structured data via in-context learning, without task-specific estimation. We ask whether TFMs can be effectively applied to discrete choice, a central demand estimation framework in marketing and operations, and find that directly applying TFMs yields limited performance. The gap is structural: TFMs assume row-independent observations, whereas discrete choice is inherently set-valued and subject to persistent consumer preference heterogeneity. We propose a reformulation that encodes both choice-set dependence and individual heterogeneity within a row-based learning framework. Evaluated on a yogurt scanner panel, individual-level heterogeneity encoding is the dominant driver of predictive accuracy. The best reformulation outperforms hierarchical Bayesian estimation on both holdout log-likelihood and hit rate, running 16 times faster, a practical advantage for large-scale demand estimation. The advantage is largest in the medium-data regime (10--40 purchase occasions per consumer), where parametric Bayesian shrinkage most distorts estimates for atypical consumers. Fine-tuning on population choice data provides additional gains for consumers with shallow purchase histories, where in-context learning has limited individual-specific signal to condition on. These results establish a principled approach for applying foundation models to consumer choice problems more broadly.

Suggested Citation

  • Liu Liu & Dan Zhang, 2026. "Tabular Foundation Models for Discrete Choice Estimation," Papers 2607.13314, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2607.13314
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.13314
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2019. "Machine Learning Methods That Economists Should Know About," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 11(1), pages 685-725, August.
    2. Vivek F. Farias & Srikanth Jagabathula & Devavrat Shah, 2013. "A Nonparametric Approach to Modeling Choice with Limited Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(2), pages 305-322, December.
    3. Peter E. Rossi & Robert E. McCulloch & Greg M. Allenby, 1996. "The Value of Purchase History Data in Target Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 321-340.
    4. Sifringer, Brian & Lurkin, Virginie & Alahi, Alexandre, 2020. "Enhancing discrete choice models with representation learning," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 236-261.
    5. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    6. Sebastian Gabel & Artem Timoshenko, 2022. "Product Choice with Large Assortments: A Scalable Deep-Learning Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(3), pages 1808-1827, March.
    7. Gerardo Berbeglia & Agustín Garassino & Gustavo Vulcano, 2022. "A Comparative Empirical Study of Discrete Choice Models in Retail Operations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(6), pages 4005-4023, June.
    8. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan & Ashesh Rambachan, 2026. "Large Language Models: An Applied Econometric Framework," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 18(1), pages 283-316, August.
    9. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    10. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    11. Noah Hollmann & Samuel Müller & Lennart Purucker & Arjun Krishnakumar & Max Körfer & Shi Bin Hoo & Robin Tibor Schirrmeister & Frank Hutter, 2025. "Accurate predictions on small data with a tabular foundation model," Nature, Nature, vol. 637(8045), pages 319-326, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    14. Pradeep K. Chintagunta & Harikesh S. Nair, 2011. "Structural Workshop Paper --Discrete-Choice Models of Consumer Demand in Marketing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 977-996, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Allenby, Greg M. & Rossi, Peter E., 1998. "Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 57-78, November.
    17. Paul B. Ellickson & Wreetabrata Kar & James C. Reeder, 2023. "Estimating Marketing Component Effects: Double Machine Learning from Targeted Digital Promotions," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(4), pages 704-728, July.
    18. John J. Horton & Apostolos Filippas & Benjamin S. Manning, 2023. "Large Language Models as Simulated Economic Agents: What Can We Learn from Homo Silicus?," NBER Working Papers 31122, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Theodoros Evgeniou & Massimiliano Pontil & Olivier Toubia, 2007. "A Convex Optimization Approach to Modeling Consumer Heterogeneity in Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 805-818, 11-12.
    20. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    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. Max J. Pachali & Peter Kurz & Thomas Otter, 2020. "How to generalize from a hierarchical model?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 343-380, December.
    2. Max J. Pachali & Peter Kurz & Thomas Otter, 0. "How to generalize from a hierarchical model?," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-38.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Hongshen Sun & Juanjuan Zhang, 2025. "From Model Choice to Model Belief: Establishing a New Measure for LLM-Based Research," Papers 2512.23184, arXiv.org.
    5. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    6. Lalit Jain & Zhaoqi Li & Erfan Loghmani & Blake Mason & Hema Yoganarasimhan, 2024. "Effective Adaptive Exploration of Prices and Promotions in Choice-Based Demand Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(5), pages 1002-1030, September.
    7. Martin, Elliott William, 2009. "New Vehicle Choice, Fuel Economy and Vehicle Incentives: An Analysis of Hybrid Tax Credits and the Gasoline Tax," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt5gd206wv, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Krueger, Rico & Bierlaire, Michel & Daziano, Ricardo A. & Rashidi, Taha H. & Bansal, Prateek, 2021. "Evaluating the predictive abilities of mixed logit models with unobserved inter- and intra-individual heterogeneity," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Martin, Elliot William, 2009. "New Vehicle Choices, Fuel Economy and Vehicle Incentives: An Analysis of Hybrid Tax Credits and Gasoline Tax," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6sz198c2, University of California Transportation Center.
    10. William Greene, 2007. "Discrete Choice Modeling," Working Papers 07-6, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    11. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    12. Yiqun Hu & Limeng Liu & David Simchi-Levi & Zhenzhen Yan, 2025. "Learning Mixed Multinomial Logits with Provable Guarantees and Its Applications in Multiproduct Pricing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 71(12), pages 10225-10243, December.
    13. Keane, Michael P. & Wasi, Nada, 2016. "How to model consumer heterogeneity? Lessons from three case studies on SP and RP data," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 197-231.
    14. Xiyuan Ren & Joseph Y. J. Chow & Prateek Bansal, 2023. "Nonparametric mixed logit model with market-level parameters estimated from market share data," Papers 2309.13159, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2025.
    15. Nils Goeken & Peter Kurz & Winfried J. Steiner, 2024. "Multimodal preference heterogeneity in choice-based conjoint analysis: a simulation study," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 137-185, January.
    16. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2013. "Obtaining reliable Likelihood Ratio tests from simulated likelihood functions," IFRO Working Paper 2013/1, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    17. Robert Donnelly & Francisco J. R. Ruiz & David Blei & Susan Athey, 2021. "Correction to: Counterfactual inference for consumer choice across many product categories," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 409-409, December.
    18. Francisco Javier Amador & Rosa Marina González & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2004. "Preference heterogeneity and willingness to pay for travel time," Documentos de trabajo conjunto ULL-ULPGC 2004-12, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas de la ULPGC.
    19. Qi Feng & J. George Shanthikumar & Mengying Xue, 2022. "Consumer Choice Models and Estimation: A Review and Extension," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(2), pages 847-867, February.
    20. Rudolph, Christian, 2016. "How may incentives for electric cars affect purchase decisions?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 113-120.

    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:2607.13314. 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.