IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/igi/igierp/615.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: inside and outside the black box

Author

Listed:
  • S. Cerreia-Vioglio
  • F. Maccheroni
  • M. Marinacci
  • A. Rustichini

Abstract

We provide both an axiomatic and a neuropsychological characterization of the dependence of choice probabilities on time in the softmax (or Multinomial Logit Process) form: MLP is the most widely used model of preference discovery in all fields of decision making, from Quantal Response Equilibrium to Discrete Choice Analysis, from Psychophysics and Neuroscience to Combinatorial Optimization. Our axiomatic characterization of softmax permits to empirically test its descriptive validity and to better understand its conceptual underpinnings as a theory of agents'rationality. Our neuropsychological foundation provides a computational model that may explain softmax emergence in human behavior and that naturally extends to multialternative choice the classical Diffusion Model paradigm of binary choice. These complementary approaches provide a complete perspective on softmaximization as a model of preference discovery, both in terms of internal (neuropsychological) causes and external (behavioral) effect. Keywords: Discrete Choice Analysis, Drift Diffusion Model, Luce Model, Metropolis Algorithm, Multinomial Logit Model, Quantal Response Equilibrium

Suggested Citation

  • S. Cerreia-Vioglio & F. Maccheroni & M. Marinacci & A. Rustichini, 2017. "Multinomial logit processes and preference discovery: inside and outside the black box," Working Papers 615, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
  • Handle: RePEc:igi:igierp:615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://ftp.igier.unibocconi.it/wp/2017/615.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drew Fudenberg & Philipp Strack & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2018. "Speed, Accuracy, and the Optimal Timing of Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3651-3684, December.
    2. Jakub Steiner & Colin Stewart & Filip Matějka, 2017. "Rational Inattention Dynamics: Inertia and Delay in Decision‐Making," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 521-553, March.
    3. Jörg Rieskamp & Jerome R. Busemeyer & Barbara A. Mellers, 2006. "Extending the Bounds of Rationality: Evidence and Theories of Preferential Choice," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 631-661, September.
    4. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    5. Scott J. Savage & Donald M. Waldman, 2008. "Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: a comparison of online and mail survey modes," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 351-371.
    6. McKelvey Richard D. & Palfrey Thomas R., 1995. "Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 6-38, July.
    7. Patrizio Frederic & Mario Di Bacco & Frank Lad, 2012. "Combining expert probabilities using the product of odds," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 605-619, October.
    8. McKelvey, Richard D & Palfrey, Thomas R, 1992. "An Experimental Study of the Centipede Game," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 803-836, July.
    9. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2016. "Quantal Response Equilibrium:A Stochastic Theory of Games," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10743, March.
    10. Drew Fudenberg & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2015. "Dynamic Logit With Choice Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 651-691, March.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, December.
    12. Jay Lu, 2016. "Random Choice and Private Information," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 1983-2027, November.
    13. Elena Reutskaja & Rosemarie Nagel & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 900-926, April.
    14. Campbell, Danny & Boeri, Marco & Doherty, Edel & George Hutchinson, W., 2015. "Learning, fatigue and preference formation in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 345-363.
    15. Caplin, Andrew & Dean, Mark, 2011. "Search, choice, and revealed preference," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.
    16. Paulo Natenzon, 2019. "Random Choice and Learning," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 419-457.
    17. Simon P. Anderson & Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2004. "Noisy Directional Learning and the Logit Equilibrium," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 106(3), pages 581-602, October.
    18. Ernst Fehr & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Neuroeconomic Foundations of Economic Choice--Recent Advances," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 3-30, Fall.
    19. Michael Woodford, 2014. "Stochastic Choice: An Optimizing Neuroeconomic Model," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 495-500, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mira Frick & Ryota Iijima & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2019. "Dynamic Random Utility," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(6), pages 1941-2002, November.
    2. Federico Echenique & Kota Saito, 2019. "General Luce model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 68(4), pages 811-826, November.

    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:igi:igierp:615. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://www.igier.unibocconi.it/ .

    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.