Empirical Methods for Microeconomic Applications University of Lugano, Switzerland May 27-31, 2019 William Greene Department of Economics Stern School.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business IFS at UCL February 11-13, 2004
Advertisements

Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
3. Binary Choice – Inference. Hypothesis Testing in Binary Choice Models.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
12. Random Parameters Logit Models. Random Parameters Model Allow model parameters as well as constants to be random Allow multiple observations with.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Error Component models Ric Scarpa Prepared for the Choice Modelling Workshop 1st and 2nd of May Brisbane Powerhouse, New Farm Brisbane.
Discrete Choice Models William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University Lab Sessions.
15. Stated Preference Experiments. Panel Data Repeated Choice Situations Typically RP/SP constructions (experimental) Accommodating “panel data” Multinomial.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
10. Multinomial Choice. A Microeconomics Platform Consumers Maximize Utility (!!!) Fundamental Choice Problem: Maximize U(x 1,x 2,…) subject to prices.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
[Part 15] 1/24 Discrete Choice Modeling Aggregate Share Data - BLP Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Models William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Microeconometric Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Empirical Methods for Microeconomic Applications University of Lugano, Switzerland May 27-31, 2013 William Greene Department of Economics Stern School.
[Part 9] 1/79 Discrete Choice Modeling Modeling Heterogeneity Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University Lab Sessions.
1/54: Topic 5.1 – Modeling Stated Preference Data Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New York NY USA.
[Part 4] 1/43 Discrete Choice Modeling Bivariate & Multivariate Probit Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University Lab Sessions.
Part 24: Stated Choice [1/117] Econometric Analysis of Panel Data William Greene Department of Economics Stern School of Business.
Discrete Choice Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
14. Scaling and Heteroscedasticity. Using Degenerate Branches to Reveal Scaling Travel Fly Rail Air CarTrain Bus LIMB BRANCH TWIG DriveGrndPblc.
Microeconometric Modeling
1/30: Topic 4.1 – Nested Logit and Multinomial Probit Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New.
[Part 7] 1/96 Discrete Choice Modeling Multinomial Choice Models Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
11. Nested Logit Models. Extended Formulation of the MNL Groups of similar alternatives Compound Utility: U(Alt)=U(Alt|Branch)+U(branch) Behavioral implications.
[Part 15] 1/24 Discrete Choice Modeling Aggregate Share Data - BLP Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
[Part 8] 1/26 Discrete Choice Modeling Nested Logit Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/30: Topic 4.1 – Nested Logit and Multinomial Probit Models Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
1/122: Topic 3.3 – Discrete Choice; The Multinomial Logit Model Microeconometric Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University New.
[Part 5] 1/43 Discrete Choice Modeling Ordered Choice Models Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University 0Introduction.
Discrete Choice Modeling William Greene Stern School of Business New York University.
5. Extensions of Binary Choice Models
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Discrete Choice Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
Discrete Choice Models
Discrete Choice Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
Discrete Choice Modeling
Econometrics Chengyuan Yin School of Mathematics.
Discrete Choice Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Microeconometric Modeling
Microeconometric Modeling
Econometric Analysis of Panel Data
William Greene Stern School of Business New York University
Empirical Methods for Microeconomic Applications
Microeconometric Modeling
Presentation transcript:

Empirical Methods for Microeconomic Applications University of Lugano, Switzerland May 27-31, 2019 William Greene Department of Economics Stern School of Business New York University

2C. Multinomial Choice

Agenda for 2C Random Utility The Multinomial Logit Model Choice Data Estimating the MNL Model Fit Elasticities Willingness to Pay The IIA Assumption(s) Multinomial Probit Mixed Logit (Random Parameters) Nested Logit

A Microeconomics Platform Consumers Maximize Utility (!!!) Fundamental Choice Problem: Maximize U(x1,x2,…) subject to prices and budget constraints A Crucial Result for the Classical Problem: Indirect Utility Function: V = V(p,I) Demand System of Continuous Choices Observed data usually consist of choices, prices, income The Integrability Problem: Utility is not revealed by demands

Multinomial Choice Among J Alternatives • Random Utility Basis Uitj = ij + i’xitj + ijzit + ijt i = 1,…,N; j = 1,…,J(i,t); t = 1,…,Ti N individuals studied, J(i,t) alternatives in the choice set, Ti [usually 1] choice situations examined. • Maximum Utility Assumption Individual i will Choose alternative j in choice setting t if and only if Uitj > Uitk for all k  j.

Mode Choices of 210 Travelers

Features of Utility Functions The linearity assumption Uitj = ij + i xitj + j zi + ijt The choice set: Individual (i) and situation (t) specific Unordered alternatives j = 1,…,J(i,t) Deterministic (x,z,j) and random components (ij,i,ijt) Attributes of choices, xitj and characteristics of the chooser, zi. Alternative specific constants ij may vary by individual Preference weights, i may vary by individual Individual components, j typically vary by choice, not by person Scaling parameters, σij = Var[εijt], subject to much modeling

Data on Discrete Choices CHOICE ATTRIBUTES CHARACTERISTIC MODE TRAVEL INVC INVT TTME GC HINC AIR .00000 59.000 100.00 69.000 70.000 35.000 TRAIN .00000 31.000 372.00 34.000 71.000 35.000 BUS .00000 25.000 417.00 35.000 70.000 35.000 CAR 1.0000 10.000 180.00 .00000 30.000 35.000 AIR .00000 58.000 68.000 64.000 68.000 30.000 TRAIN .00000 31.000 354.00 44.000 84.000 30.000 BUS .00000 25.000 399.00 53.000 85.000 30.000 CAR 1.0000 11.000 255.00 .00000 50.000 30.000 AIR .00000 127.00 193.00 69.000 148.00 60.000 TRAIN .00000 109.00 888.00 34.000 205.00 60.000 BUS 1.0000 52.000 1025.0 60.000 163.00 60.000 CAR .00000 50.000 892.00 .00000 147.00 60.000 AIR .00000 44.000 100.00 64.000 59.000 70.000 TRAIN .00000 25.000 351.00 44.000 78.000 70.000 BUS .00000 20.000 361.00 53.000 75.000 70.000 CAR 1.0000 5.0000 180.00 .00000 32.000 70.000

The Multinomial Logit (MNL) Model Independent extreme value (Gumbel): F(itj) = Exp(-Exp(-itj)) (random part of each utility) Independence across utility functions Identical variances (means absorbed in constants) Same parameters for all individuals (temporary) Implied probabilities for observed outcomes

Multinomial Choice Models

Specifying the Probabilities • Choice specific attributes (X) vary by choices, multiply by generic coefficients. E.g., INVT=In vehicle time, INVC=In vehicle cost Generic characteristics, HINC=Household income, must be interacted with choice specific constants. • Estimation by maximum likelihood; dij = 1 if person i chooses j

Using the Model to Measure Consumer Surplus

Measuring the Change in Consumer Surplus

Willingness to Pay

Observed Choice3 Data Types of Data Attributes and Characteristics Individual choice Market shares – consumer markets Frequencies – vote counts Ranks – contests, preference rankings Attributes and Characteristics Attributes are features of the choices such as price Characteristics are features of the chooser such as age, gender and income. Choice Settings Cross section Repeated measurement (panel data) Stated choice experiments Repeated observations – THE scanner data on consumer choices

Individual Data on Discrete Choices CHOICE ATTRIBUTES CHARACTERISTIC MODE TRAVEL INVC INVT TTME GC HINC AIR .00000 59.000 100.00 69.000 70.000 35.000 TRAIN .00000 31.000 372.00 34.000 71.000 35.000 BUS .00000 25.000 417.00 35.000 70.000 35.000 CAR 1.0000 10.000 180.00 .00000 30.000 35.000 AIR .00000 58.000 68.000 64.000 68.000 30.000 TRAIN .00000 31.000 354.00 44.000 84.000 30.000 BUS .00000 25.000 399.00 53.000 85.000 30.000 CAR 1.0000 11.000 255.00 .00000 50.000 30.000 AIR .00000 127.00 193.00 69.000 148.00 60.000 TRAIN .00000 109.00 888.00 34.000 205.00 60.000 BUS 1.0000 52.000 1025.0 60.000 163.00 60.000 CAR .00000 50.000 892.00 .00000 147.00 60.000 AIR .00000 44.000 100.00 64.000 59.000 70.000 TRAIN .00000 25.000 351.00 44.000 78.000 70.000 BUS .00000 20.000 361.00 53.000 75.000 70.000 CAR 1.0000 5.0000 180.00 .00000 32.000 70.000 This is the ‘long form.’ In the ‘wide form,’ all data for the individual appear on a single ‘line’. The wide form is unmanageable for models of any complexity and for stated preference applications.

A Stated Choice Experiment with Variable Choice Sets Each person makes four choices from a choice set that includes either two or four alternatives. The first choice is the RP between two of the RP alternatives The second-fourth are the SP among four of the six SP alternatives. There are ten alternatives in total. A Stated Choice Experiment with Variable Choice Sets

Stated Choice Experiment: Unlabeled Alternatives, One Observation

An Estimated MNL Model for Travel ----------------------------------------------------------- Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Dependent variable Choice Log likelihood function -199.97662 Estimation based on N = 210, K = 5 Information Criteria: Normalization=1/N Normalized Unnormalized AIC 1.95216 409.95325 Fin.Smpl.AIC 1.95356 410.24736 Bayes IC 2.03185 426.68878 Hannan Quinn 1.98438 416.71880 R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd R2Adj Constants only -283.7588 .2953 .2896 Chi-squared[ 2] = 167.56429 Prob [ chi squared > value ] = .00000 Response data are given as ind. choices Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] GC| -.01578*** .00438 -3.601 .0003 TTME| -.09709*** .01044 -9.304 .0000 A_AIR| 5.77636*** .65592 8.807 .0000 A_TRAIN| 3.92300*** .44199 8.876 .0000 A_BUS| 3.21073*** .44965 7.140 .0000

Estimated MNL Model ----------------------------------------------------------- Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Dependent variable Choice Log likelihood function -199.97662 Estimation based on N = 210, K = 5 Information Criteria: Normalization=1/N Normalized Unnormalized AIC 1.95216 409.95325 Fin.Smpl.AIC 1.95356 410.24736 Bayes IC 2.03185 426.68878 Hannan Quinn 1.98438 416.71880 R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd R2Adj Constants only -283.7588 .2953 .2896 Chi-squared[ 2] = 167.56429 Prob [ chi squared > value ] = .00000 Response data are given as ind. choices Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] GC| -.01578*** .00438 -3.601 .0003 TTME| -.09709*** .01044 -9.304 .0000 A_AIR| 5.77636*** .65592 8.807 .0000 A_TRAIN| 3.92300*** .44199 8.876 .0000 A_BUS| 3.21073*** .44965 7.140 .0000

Estimated MNL Model ----------------------------------------------------------- Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Dependent variable Choice Log likelihood function -199.97662 Estimation based on N = 210, K = 5 Information Criteria: Normalization=1/N Normalized Unnormalized AIC 1.95216 409.95325 Fin.Smpl.AIC 1.95356 410.24736 Bayes IC 2.03185 426.68878 Hannan Quinn 1.98438 416.71880 R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd R2Adj Constants only -283.7588 .2953 .2896 Chi-squared[ 2] = 167.56429 Prob [ chi squared > value ] = .00000 Response data are given as ind. choices Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] GC| -.01578*** .00438 -3.601 .0003 TTME| -.09709*** .01044 -9.304 .0000 A_AIR| 5.77636*** .65592 8.807 .0000 A_TRAIN| 3.92300*** .44199 8.876 .0000 A_BUS| 3.21073*** .44965 7.140 .0000

Model Fit Based on Log Likelihood Three sets of predicted probabilities No model: Pij = 1/J (.25) Constants only: Pij = (1/N)i dij (58,63,30,59)/210=.286,.300,.143,.281 Constants only model matches sample shares Estimated model: Logit probabilities Compute log likelihood Measure improvements in log likelihood with pseudo R-squared = 1 – LogL/LogL0 (“Adjusted” for number of parameters in the model.)

Fit the Model with Only ASCs If the choice set varies across observations, this is the only way to obtain the restricted log likelihood. ----------------------------------------------------------- Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Dependent variable Choice Log likelihood function -283.75877 Estimation based on N = 210, K = 3 Information Criteria: Normalization=1/N Normalized Unnormalized AIC 2.73104 573.51754 Fin.Smpl.AIC 2.73159 573.63404 Bayes IC 2.77885 583.55886 Hannan Quinn 2.75037 577.57687 R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd R2Adj Constants only -283.7588 .0000-.0048 Response data are given as ind. choices Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] A_AIR| -.01709 .18491 -.092 .9263 A_TRAIN| .06560 .18117 .362 .7173 A_BUS| -.67634*** .22424 -3.016 .0026

Estimated MNL Model ----------------------------------------------------------- Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Dependent variable Choice Log likelihood function -199.97662 Estimation based on N = 210, K = 5 Information Criteria: Normalization=1/N Normalized Unnormalized AIC 1.95216 409.95325 Fin.Smpl.AIC 1.95356 410.24736 Bayes IC 2.03185 426.68878 Hannan Quinn 1.98438 416.71880 R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd R2Adj Constants only -283.7588 .2953 .2896 Chi-squared[ 2] = 167.56429 Prob [ chi squared > value ] = .00000 Response data are given as ind. choices Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] GC| -.01578*** .00438 -3.601 .0003 TTME| -.09709*** .01044 -9.304 .0000 A_AIR| 5.77636*** .65592 8.807 .0000 A_TRAIN| 3.92300*** .44199 8.876 .0000 A_BUS| 3.21073*** .44965 7.140 .0000

Model Fit Based on Predictions Nj = actual number of choosers of “j.” Nfitj = i Predicted Probabilities for “j” Cross tabulate: Predicted vs. Actual, cell prediction is cell probability Predicted vs. Actual, cell prediction is the cell with the largest probability Njk = i dij  Predicted P(i,k)

Fit Measures Based on Crosstabulation +-------------------------------------------------------+ | Cross tabulation of actual choice vs. predicted P(j) | | Row indicator is actual, column is predicted. | | Predicted total is F(k,j,i)=Sum(i=1,...,N) P(k,j,i). | | Column totals may be subject to rounding error. | NLOGIT Cross Tabulation for 4 outcome Multinomial Choice Model AIR TRAIN BUS CAR Total +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ AIR | 32 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 58 | TRAIN | 8 | 37 | 5 | 14 | 63 | BUS | 3 | 5 | 15 | 6 | 30 | CAR | 15 | 13 | 6 | 26 | 59 | Total | 58 | 63 | 30 | 59 | 210 | NLOGIT Cross Tabulation for 4 outcome Constants Only Choice Model AIR | 16 | 17 | 8 | 16 | 58 | TRAIN | 17 | 19 | 9 | 18 | 63 | BUS | 8 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 30 | CAR | 16 | 18 | 8 | 17 | 59 |

Using the Most Probable Cell +-------------------------------------------------------+ | Cross tabulation of actual y(ij) vs. predicted y(ij) | | Row indicator is actual, column is predicted. | | Predicted total is N(k,j,i)=Sum(i=1,...,N) Y(k,j,i). | | Predicted y(ij)=1 is the j with largest probability. | NLOGIT Cross Tabulation for 4 outcome Multinomial Choice Model AIR TRAIN BUS CAR Total +-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+ AIR | 40 | 3 | 0 | 15 | 58 | TRAIN | 4 | 45 | 0 | 14 | 63 | BUS | 0 | 3 | 23 | 4 | 30 | CAR | 7 | 14 | 0 | 38 | 59 | Total | 51 | 65 | 23 | 71 | 210 | NLOGIT Cross Tabulation for 4 outcome Constants only Model AIR | 0 | 58 | 0 | 0 | 58 | TRAIN | 0 | 63 | 0 | 0 | 63 | BUS | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 30 | CAR | 0 | 59 | 0 | 0 | 59 | Total | 0 | 210 | 0 | 0 | 210 |

Effects of Changes in Attributes on Probabilities j = Train m = Car k = Price

Effects of Changes in Attributes on Probabilities k = Price j = Train j = Train m = Car

Effects of Changes in Attributes on Probabilities

Elasticities for CLOGIT +---------------------------------------------------+ | Elasticity averaged over observations.| | Attribute is INVT in choice AIR | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=AIR -.2055 .0666 | | Choice=TRAIN .0903 .0681 | | Choice=BUS .0903 .0681 | | Choice=CAR .0903 .0681 | | Attribute is INVT in choice TRAIN | | Choice=AIR .3568 .1231 | | * Choice=TRAIN -.9892 .5217 | | Choice=BUS .3568 .1231 | | Choice=CAR .3568 .1231 | | Attribute is INVT in choice BUS | | Choice=AIR .1889 .0743 | | Choice=TRAIN .1889 .0743 | | * Choice=BUS -1.2040 .4803 | | Choice=CAR .1889 .0743 | | Attribute is INVT in choice CAR | | Choice=AIR .3174 .1195 | | Choice=TRAIN .3174 .1195 | | Choice=BUS .3174 .1195 | | * Choice=CAR -.9510 .5504 | | Effects on probabilities of all choices in model: | | * = Direct Elasticity effect of the attribute. | Note the effect of IIA on the cross effects. Own effect Cross effects Elasticities are computed for each observation; the mean and standard deviation are then computed across the sample observations.

Analyzing the Behavior of Market Shares to Examine Discrete Effects Scenario: What happens to the number of people who make specific choices if a particular attribute changes in a specified way? Fit the model first, then using the identical model setup, add ; Simulation = list of choices to be analyzed ; Scenario = Attribute (in choices) = type of change For the CLOGIT application ; Simulation = * ? This is ALL choices ; Scenario: GC(car)=[*]1.25$ Car_GC rises by 25%

Model Simulation +---------------------------------------------+ | Discrete Choice (One Level) Model | | Model Simulation Using Previous Estimates | | Number of observations 210 | +------------------------------------------------------+ |Simulations of Probability Model | |Model: Discrete Choice (One Level) Model | |Simulated choice set may be a subset of the choices. | |Number of individuals is the probability times the | |number of observations in the simulated sample. | |Column totals may be affected by rounding error. | |The model used was simulated with 210 observations.| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specification of scenario 1 is: Attribute Alternatives affected Change type Value --------- ------------------------------- ------------------- --------- GC CAR Scale base by value 1.250 The simulator located 209 observations for this scenario. Simulated Probabilities (shares) for this scenario: +----------+--------------+--------------+------------------+ |Choice | Base | Scenario | Scenario - Base | | |%Share Number |%Share Number |ChgShare ChgNumber| |AIR | 27.619 58 | 29.592 62 | 1.973% 4 | |TRAIN | 30.000 63 | 31.748 67 | 1.748% 4 | |BUS | 14.286 30 | 15.189 32 | .903% 2 | |CAR | 28.095 59 | 23.472 49 | -4.624% -10 | |Total |100.000 210 |100.000 210 | .000% 0 | Changes in the predicted market shares when GC of CAR increases by 25%.

More Complicated Model Simulation In vehicle cost of CAR falls by 10% Market is limited to ground (Train, Bus, Car) CLOGIT ; Lhs = Mode ; Choices = Air,Train,Bus,Car ; Rhs = TTME,INVC,INVT,GC ; Rh2 = One ,Hinc ; Simulation = TRAIN,BUS,CAR ; Scenario: GC(car)=[*].9$

Model Estimation Step ----------------------------------------------------------- Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Dependent variable Choice Log likelihood function -172.94366 Estimation based on N = 210, K = 10 R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd R2Adj Constants only -283.7588 .3905 .3807 Chi-squared[ 7] = 221.63022 Prob [ chi squared > value ] = .00000 Response data are given as ind. choices Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] TTME| -.10289*** .01109 -9.280 .0000 INVC| -.08044*** .01995 -4.032 .0001 INVT| -.01399*** .00267 -5.240 .0000 GC| .07578*** .01833 4.134 .0000 A_AIR| 4.37035*** 1.05734 4.133 .0000 AIR_HIN1| .00428 .01306 .327 .7434 A_TRAIN| 5.91407*** .68993 8.572 .0000 TRA_HIN2| -.05907*** .01471 -4.016 .0001 A_BUS| 4.46269*** .72333 6.170 .0000 BUS_HIN3| -.02295 .01592 -1.442 .1493 Alternative specific constants and interactions of ASCs and Household Income

Model Simulation Step +------------------------------------------------------+ |Simulations of Probability Model | |Model: Discrete Choice (One Level) Model | |Simulated choice set may be a subset of the choices. | |Number of individuals is the probability times the | |number of observations in the simulated sample. | |The model used was simulated with 210 observations.| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specification of scenario 1 is: Attribute Alternatives affected Change type Value --------- ------------------------------- ------------------- --------- INVC CAR Scale base by value .900 The simulator located 210 observations for this scenario. Simulated Probabilities (shares) for this scenario: +----------+--------------+--------------+------------------+ |Choice | Base | Scenario | Scenario - Base | | |%Share Number |%Share Number |ChgShare ChgNumber| |TRAIN | 37.321 78 | 35.854 75 | -1.467% -3 | |BUS | 19.805 42 | 18.641 39 | -1.164% -3 | |CAR | 42.874 90 | 45.506 96 | 2.632% 6 | |Total |100.000 210 |100.000 210 | .000% 0 |

Willingness to Pay U(alt) = aj + bINCOME*INCOME + bAttribute*Attribute + … WTP = MU(Attribute)/MU(Income) When MU(Income) is not available, an approximation often used is –MU(Cost). U(Air,Train,Bus,Car) = αalt + βcost Cost + βINVT INVT + βTTME TTME + εalt WTP for less in vehicle time = -βINVT / βCOST WTP for less terminal time = -βTIME / βCOST

WTP from CLOGIT Model ----------------------------------------------------------- Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Dependent variable Choice --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] GC| -.00286 .00610 -.469 .6390 INVT| -.00349*** .00115 -3.037 .0024 TTME| -.09746*** .01035 -9.414 .0000 AASC| 4.05405*** .83662 4.846 .0000 TASC| 3.64460*** .44276 8.232 .0000 BASC| 3.19579*** .45194 7.071 .0000 WALD ; fn1=WTP_INVT=b_invt/b_gc ; fn2=WTP_TTME=b_ttme/b_gc$ WALD procedure. WTP_INVT| 1.22006 2.88619 .423 .6725 WTP_TTME| 34.0771 73.07097 .466 .6410 Very different estimates suggests this might not be a very good model.

Estimation in WTP Space

The I.I.D Assumption Uitj = ij + ’xitj + ’zit + ijt F(itj) = Exp(-Exp(-itj)) (random part of each utility) Independence across utility functions Identical variances (means absorbed in constants) Restriction on equal scaling may be inappropriate Correlation across alternatives may be suppressed Equal cross elasticities is a substantive restriction Behavioral implication of IID is independence from irrelevant alternatives.. If an alternative is removed, probability is spread equally across the remaining alternatives. This is unreasonable

IIA Implication of IID

Behavioral Implication of IIA +---------------------------------------------------+ | Elasticity averaged over observations.| | Attribute is INVT in choice AIR | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=AIR -.2055 .0666 | | Choice=TRAIN .0903 .0681 | | Choice=BUS .0903 .0681 | | Choice=CAR .0903 .0681 | | Attribute is INVT in choice TRAIN | | Choice=AIR .3568 .1231 | | * Choice=TRAIN -.9892 .5217 | | Choice=BUS .3568 .1231 | | Choice=CAR .3568 .1231 | | Attribute is INVT in choice BUS | | Choice=AIR .1889 .0743 | | Choice=TRAIN .1889 .0743 | | * Choice=BUS -1.2040 .4803 | | Choice=CAR .1889 .0743 | | Attribute is INVT in choice CAR | | Choice=AIR .3174 .1195 | | Choice=TRAIN .3174 .1195 | | Choice=BUS .3174 .1195 | | * Choice=CAR -.9510 .5504 | | Effects on probabilities of all choices in model: | | * = Direct Elasticity effect of the attribute. | Note the effect of IIA on the cross effects. Own effect Cross effects Elasticities are computed for each observation; the mean and standard deviation are then computed across the sample observations.

A Hausman and McFadden Test for IIA Estimate full model with “irrelevant alternatives” Estimate the short model eliminating the irrelevant alternatives Eliminate individuals who chose the irrelevant alternatives Drop attributes that are constant in the surviving choice set. Do the coefficients change? Under the IIA assumption, they should not. Use a Hausman test: Chi-squared, d.f. Number of parameters estimated

IIA Test for Choice AIR IIA is rejected +--------+--------------+----------------+--------+--------+ |Variable| Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z]| GC | .06929537 .01743306 3.975 .0001 TTME | -.10364955 .01093815 -9.476 .0000 INVC | -.08493182 .01938251 -4.382 .0000 INVT | -.01333220 .00251698 -5.297 .0000 AASC | 5.20474275 .90521312 5.750 .0000 TASC | 4.36060457 .51066543 8.539 .0000 BASC | 3.76323447 .50625946 7.433 .0000 GC | .53961173 .14654681 3.682 .0002 TTME | -.06847037 .01674719 -4.088 .0000 INVC | -.58715772 .14955000 -3.926 .0001 INVT | -.09100015 .02158271 -4.216 .0000 TASC | 4.62957401 .81841212 5.657 .0000 BASC | 3.27415138 .76403628 4.285 .0000 Matrix IIATEST has 1 rows and 1 columns. 1 +-------------- 1| 33.78445 Test statistic +------------------------------------+ | Listed Calculator Results | Result = 9.487729 Critical value IIA is rejected

The Multinomial Probit Model

Multinomial Probit Model +---------------------------------------------+ | Multinomial Probit Model | | Dependent variable MODE | | Number of observations 210 | | Iterations completed 30 | | Log likelihood function -184.7619 | Not comparable to MNL | Response data are given as ind. choice. | +--------+--------------+----------------+--------+--------+ |Variable| Coefficient | Standard Error |b/St.Er.|P[|Z|>z]| ---------+Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) GC | .10822534 .04339733 2.494 .0126 TTME | -.08973122 .03381432 -2.654 .0080 INVC | -.13787970 .05010551 -2.752 .0059 INVT | -.02113622 .00727190 -2.907 .0037 AASC | 3.24244623 1.57715164 2.056 .0398 TASC | 4.55063845 1.46158257 3.114 .0018 BASC | 4.02415398 1.28282031 3.137 .0017 ---------+Std. Devs. of the Normal Distribution. s[AIR] | 3.60695794 1.42963795 2.523 .0116 s[TRAIN]| 1.59318892 .81711159 1.950 .0512 s[BUS] | 1.00000000 ......(Fixed Parameter)....... s[CAR] | 1.00000000 ......(Fixed Parameter)....... ---------+Correlations in the Normal Distribution rAIR,TRA| .30491746 .49357120 .618 .5367 rAIR,BUS| .40383018 .63548534 .635 .5251 rTRA,BUS| .36973127 .42310789 .874 .3822 rAIR,CAR| .000000 ......(Fixed Parameter)....... rTRA,CAR| .000000 ......(Fixed Parameter)....... rBUS,CAR| .000000 ......(Fixed Parameter).......

Multinomial Probit Elasticities +---------------------------------------------------+ | Elasticity averaged over observations.| | Attribute is INVC in choice AIR | | Effects on probabilities of all choices in model: | | * = Direct Elasticity effect of the attribute. | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=AIR -4.2785 1.7182 | | Choice=TRAIN 1.9910 1.6765 | | Choice=BUS 2.6722 1.8376 | | Choice=CAR 1.4169 1.3250 | | Attribute is INVC in choice TRAIN | | Choice=AIR .8827 .8711 | | * Choice=TRAIN -6.3979 5.8973 | | Choice=BUS 3.6442 2.6279 | | Choice=CAR 1.9185 1.5209 | | Attribute is INVC in choice BUS | | Choice=AIR .3879 .6303 | | Choice=TRAIN 1.2804 2.1632 | | * Choice=BUS -7.4014 4.5056 | | Choice=CAR 1.5053 2.5220 | | Attribute is INVC in choice CAR | | Choice=AIR .2593 .2529 | | Choice=TRAIN .8457 .8093 | | Choice=BUS 1.7532 1.3878 | | * Choice=CAR -2.6657 3.0418 | Multinomial Logit +---------------------------+ | INVC in AIR | | Mean St.Dev | | * -5.0216 2.3881 | | 2.2191 2.6025 | | INVC in TRAIN | | 1.0066 .8801 | | * -3.3536 2.4168 | | INVC in BUS | | .4057 .6339 | | * -2.4359 1.1237 | | INVC in CAR | | .3944 .3589 | | * -1.3888 1.2161 |

Warning about Stata Multinomial Probit (mprobit)

Multinomial Choice Models: Where to From Here? Panel data (Repeated measures) Random and fixed effects models Building into a multinomial logit model The nested logit model Latent class model Mixed logit, error components and multinomial probit models A generalized mixed logit model – The frontier Combining revealed and stated preference data

Random Parameters Model Allow model parameters as well as constants to be random Allow multiple observations with persistent effects Allow a hierarchical structure for parameters – not completely random Uitj = 1’xi1tj + 2i’xi2tj + zit + ijt Random parameters in multinomial logit model 1 = nonrandom (fixed) parameters 2i = random parameters that may vary across individuals and across time Maintain I.I.D. assumption for ijt (given )

Continuous Random Variation in Preference Weights

The Random Parameters Logit Model Multiple choice situations: Independent conditioned on the individual specific parameters

Modeling Variations Parameter specification Stochastic specification “Nonrandom” – variance = 0 Correlation across parameters – random parts correlated Fixed mean – not to be estimated. Free variance Fixed range – mean estimated, triangular from 0 to 2 Hierarchical structure - ik = k + k’hi Stochastic specification Normal, uniform, triangular (tent) distributions Strictly positive – lognormal parameters (e.g., on income) Autoregressive: v(i,t,k) = u(i,t,k) + r(k)v(i,t-1,k) [this picks up time effects in multiple choice situations, e.g., fatigue.]

Estimating the Model Denote by 1 all “fixed” parameters Denote by 2i all random and hierarchical parameters

Estimating the RPL Model Estimation: 1 2it = 2 + Δhi + Γvi,t Uncorrelated: Γ is diagonal Autocorrelated: vi,t = Rvi,t-1 + ui,t (1) Estimate “structural parameters” (2) Estimate individual specific utility parameters (3) Estimate elasticities, etc.

Classical Estimation Platform: The Likelihood Expected value over all possible realizations of i (according to the estimated asymptotic distribution). I.e., over all possible samples.

Simulation Based Estimation Choice probability = P[data |(1,2,Δ,Γ,R,hi,vi,t)] Need to integrate out the unobserved random term E{P[data | (1,2,Δ,Γ,R,hi,vi,t)]} = P[…|vi,t]f(vi,t)dvi,t Integration is done by simulation Draw values of v and compute  then probabilities Average many draws Maximize the sum of the logs of the averages (See Train[Cambridge, 2003] on simulation methods.)

Maximum Simulated Likelihood True log likelihood Simulated log likelihood

Model Extensions AR(1): wi,k,t = ρkwi,k,t-1 + vi,k,t Dynamic effects in the model Restricting sign – lognormal distribution: Restricting Range and Sign: Using triangular distribution and range = 0 to 2. Heteroscedasticity and heterogeneity

Application: Shoe Brand Choice Simulated Data: Stated Choice, 400 respondents, 8 choice situations, 3,200 observations 3 choice/attributes + NONE Fashion = High / Low Quality = High / Low Price = 25/50/75,100 coded 1,2,3,4 Heterogeneity: Sex (Male=1), Age (<25, 25-39, 40+) Underlying data generated by a 3 class latent class process (100, 200, 100 in classes)

Stated Choice Experiment: Unlabeled Alternatives, One Observation

Error Components Logit Modeling Alternative approach to building cross choice correlation Common ‘effects.’ Wi is a ‘random individual effect.’

Implied Covariance Matrix Nested Logit Formulation

Error Components Logit Model ----------------------------------------------------------- Error Components (Random Effects) model Dependent variable CHOICE Log likelihood function -4158.45044 Estimation based on N = 3200, K = 5 Response data are given as ind. choices Replications for simulated probs. = 50 Halton sequences used for simulations ECM model with panel has 400 groups Fixed number of obsrvs./group= 8 Number of obs.= 3200, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Nonrandom parameters in utility functions FASH| 1.47913*** .06971 21.218 .0000 QUAL| 1.01385*** .06580 15.409 .0000 PRICE| -11.8052*** .86019 -13.724 .0000 ASC4| .03363 .07441 .452 .6513 SigmaE01| .09585*** .02529 3.791 .0002 Random Effects Logit Model Appearance of Latent Random Effects in Utilities Alternative E01 +-------------+---+ | BRAND1 | * | | BRAND2 | * | | BRAND3 | * | | NONE | | Correlation = {0.09592 / [1.6449 + 0.09592]}1/2 = 0.0954

Extended MNL Model Utility Functions

Extending the Basic MNL Model Random Utility

Error Components Logit Model

Random Parameters Model

Heterogeneous (in the Means) Random Parameters Model

Heterogeneity in Both Means and Variances

----------------------------------------------------------- Random Parms/Error Comps. Logit Model Dependent variable CHOICE Log likelihood function -4019.23544 (-4158.50286 for MNL) Restricted log likelihood -4436.14196 (Chi squared = 278.5) Chi squared [ 12 d.f.] 833.81303 Significance level .00000 McFadden Pseudo R-squared .0939795 Estimation based on N = 3200, K = 12 Information Criteria: Normalization=1/N Normalized Unnormalized AIC 2.51952 8062.47089 Fin.Smpl.AIC 2.51955 8062.56878 Bayes IC 2.54229 8135.32176 Hannan Quinn 2.52768 8088.58926 R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd R2Adj No coefficients -4436.1420 .0940 .0928 Constants only -4391.1804 .0847 .0836 At start values -4158.5029 .0335 .0323 Response data are given as ind. choices Replications for simulated probs. = 50 Halton sequences used for simulations RPL model with panel has 400 groups Fixed number of obsrvs./group= 8 Hessian is not PD. Using BHHH estimator Number of obs.= 3200, skipped 0 obs --------+--------------------------------------------------

Estimated RP/ECL Model --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Random parameters in utility functions FASH| .62768*** .13498 4.650 .0000 PRICE| -7.60651*** 1.08418 -7.016 .0000 |Nonrandom parameters in utility functions QUAL| 1.07127*** .06732 15.913 .0000 ASC4| .03874 .09017 .430 .6675 |Heterogeneity in mean, Parameter:Variable FASH:AGE| 1.73176*** .15372 11.266 .0000 FAS0:AGE| .71872*** .18592 3.866 .0001 PRIC:AGE| -9.38055*** 1.07578 -8.720 .0000 PRI0:AGE| -4.33586*** 1.20681 -3.593 .0003 |Distns. of RPs. Std.Devs or limits of triangular NsFASH| .88760*** .07976 11.128 .0000 NsPRICE| 1.23440 1.95780 .631 .5284 |Heterogeneity in standard deviations |(cF1, cF2, cP1, cP2 omitted...) |Standard deviations of latent random effects SigmaE01| .23165 .40495 .572 .5673 SigmaE02| .51260** .23002 2.228 .0258 Note: ***, **, * = Significance at 1%, 5%, 10% level. ----------------------------------------------------------- Random Effects Logit Model Appearance of Latent Random Effects in Utilities Alternative E01 E02 +-------------+---+---+ | BRAND1 | * | | | BRAND2 | * | | | BRAND3 | * | | | NONE | | * | Heterogeneity in Means. Delta: 2 rows, 2 cols. AGE25 AGE39 FASH 1.73176 .71872 PRICE -9.38055 -4.33586

Estimated Elasticities Multinomial Logit +---------------------------------------------------+ | Elasticity averaged over observations.| | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND1 | | Effects on probabilities of all choices in model: | | * = Direct Elasticity effect of the attribute. | | Mean St.Dev | | * Choice=BRAND1 -.9210 .4661 | | Choice=BRAND2 .2773 .3053 | | Choice=BRAND3 .2971 .3370 | | Choice=NONE .2781 .2804 | | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND2 | | Choice=BRAND1 .3055 .1911 | | * Choice=BRAND2 -1.2692 .6179 | | Choice=BRAND3 .3195 .2127 | | Choice=NONE .2934 .1711 | | Attribute is PRICE in choice BRAND3 | | Choice=BRAND1 .3737 .2939 | | Choice=BRAND2 .3881 .3047 | | * Choice=BRAND3 -.7549 .4015 | | Choice=NONE .3488 .2670 | +--------------------------+ | Effects on probabilities | | * = Direct effect te. | | Mean St.Dev | | PRICE in choice BRAND1 | | * BRAND1 -.8895 .3647 | | BRAND2 .2907 .2631 | | BRAND3 .2907 .2631 | | NONE .2907 .2631 | | PRICE in choice BRAND2 | | BRAND1 .3127 .1371 | | * BRAND2 -1.2216 .3135 | | BRAND3 .3127 .1371 | | NONE .3127 .1371 | | PRICE in choice BRAND3 | | BRAND1 .3664 .2233 | | BRAND2 .3664 .2233 | | * BRAND3 -.7548 .3363 | | NONE .3664 .2233 |

Estimating Individual Distributions Form posterior estimates of E[i|datai] Use the same methodology to estimate E[i2|datai] and Var[i|datai] Plot individual “confidence intervals” (assuming near normality) Sample from the distribution and plot kernel density estimates

What is the ‘Individual Estimate?’ Point estimate of mean, variance and range of random variable i | datai. Value is NOT an estimate of i ; it is an estimate of E[i | datai] This would be the best estimate of the actual realization i|datai An interval estimate would account for the sampling ‘variation’ in the estimator of Ω. Bayesian counterpart to the preceding: Posterior mean and variance. Same kind of plot could be done.

Individual E[i|datai] Estimates* The random parameters model is uncovering the latent class feature of the data. *The intervals could be made wider to account for the sampling variability of the underlying (classical) parameter estimators.

WTP Application (Value of Time Saved) Estimating Willingness to Pay for Increments to an Attribute in a Discrete Choice Model Random

Extending the RP Model to WTP Use the model to estimate conditional distributions for any function of parameters Willingness to pay = -i,time / i,cost Use simulation method

Sumulation of WTP from i

A Generalized Mixed Logit Model

Estimation in Willingness to Pay Space Both parameters in the WTP calculation are random.

Extended Formulation of the MNL Groups of similar alternatives Compound Utility: U(Alt)=U(Alt|Branch)+U(branch) Behavioral implications – Correlations across branches LIMB Travel BRANCH Private Public TWIG Air Car Train Bus

Degenerate Branches Shoe Choice Choice Situation Purchase Opt Out Choose Brand Brand None Brand1 Brand2 Brand3

Correlation Structure for a Two Level Model Within a branch Identical variances (IIA applies) Covariance (all same) = variance at higher level Branches have different variances (scale factors) Nested logit probabilities: Generalized Extreme Value Prob[Alt,Branch] = Prob(branch) * Prob(Alt|Branch)

Probabilities for a Nested Logit Model

Estimation Strategy for Nested Logit Models Two step estimation For each branch, just fit MNL Loses efficiency – replicates coefficients Does not insure consistency with utility maximization For branch level, fit separate model, just including y and the inclusive values Again loses efficiency Not consistent with utility maximization – note the form of the branch probability Full information ML Fit the entire model at once, imposing all restrictions

Estimates of a Nested Logit Model NLOGIT ; Lhs=mode ; Rhs=gc,ttme,invt,invc ; Rh2=one,hinc ; Choices=air,train,bus,car ; Tree=Travel[Private(Air,Car), Public(Train,Bus)] ; Show tree ; Effects: invc(*) ; Describe ; RU1 $ Selects branch normalization

Model Structure Tree Structure Specified for the Nested Logit Model Sample proportions are marginal, not conditional. Choices marked with * are excluded for the IIA test. ----------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+------+--- Trunk (prop.)|Limb (prop.)|Branch (prop.)|Choice (prop.)|Weight|IIA Trunk{1} 1.00000|TRAVEL 1.00000|PRIVATE .55714|AIR .27619| 1.000| | | |CAR .28095| 1.000| | |PUBLIC .44286|TRAIN .30000| 1.000| | | |BUS .14286| 1.000| +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Model Specification: Table entry is the attribute that | | multiplies the indicated parameter. | +--------+------+-----------------------------------------------+ | Choice |******| Parameter | | |Row 1| GC TTME INVT INVC A_AIR | | |Row 2| AIR_HIN1 A_TRAIN TRA_HIN3 A_BUS BUS_HIN4 | |AIR | 1| GC TTME INVT INVC Constant | | | 2| HINC none none none none | |CAR | 1| GC TTME INVT INVC none | | | 2| none none none none none | |TRAIN | 1| GC TTME INVT INVC none | | | 2| none Constant HINC none none | |BUS | 1| GC TTME INVT INVC none | | | 2| none none none Constant HINC |

MNL Starting Values ----------------------------------------------------------- Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model Dependent variable Choice Log likelihood function -172.94366 Estimation based on N = 210, K = 10 R2=1-LogL/LogL* Log-L fncn R-sqrd R2Adj Constants only -283.7588 .3905 .3787 Chi-squared[ 7] = 221.63022 Prob [ chi squared > value ] = .00000 Response data are given as ind. choices Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] GC| .07578*** .01833 4.134 .0000 TTME| -.10289*** .01109 -9.280 .0000 INVT| -.01399*** .00267 -5.240 .0000 INVC| -.08044*** .01995 -4.032 .0001 A_AIR| 4.37035*** 1.05734 4.133 .0000 AIR_HIN1| .00428 .01306 .327 .7434 A_TRAIN| 5.91407*** .68993 8.572 .0000 TRA_HIN3| -.05907*** .01471 -4.016 .0001 A_BUS| 4.46269*** .72333 6.170 .0000 BUS_HIN4| -.02295 .01592 -1.442 .1493

FIML Parameter Estimates ----------------------------------------------------------- FIML Nested Multinomial Logit Model Dependent variable MODE Log likelihood function -166.64835 The model has 2 levels. Random Utility Form 1:IVparms = LMDAb|l Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) GC| .06579*** .01878 3.504 .0005 TTME| -.07738*** .01217 -6.358 .0000 INVT| -.01335*** .00270 -4.948 .0000 INVC| -.07046*** .02052 -3.433 .0006 A_AIR| 2.49364** 1.01084 2.467 .0136 AIR_HIN1| .00357 .01057 .337 .7358 A_TRAIN| 3.49867*** .80634 4.339 .0000 TRA_HIN3| -.03581*** .01379 -2.597 .0094 A_BUS| 2.30142*** .81284 2.831 .0046 BUS_HIN4| -.01128 .01459 -.773 .4395 |IV parameters, lambda(b|l),gamma(l) PRIVATE| 2.16095*** .47193 4.579 .0000 PUBLIC| 1.56295*** .34500 4.530 .0000 |Underlying standard deviation = pi/(IVparm*sqr(6) PRIVATE| .59351*** .12962 4.579 .0000 PUBLIC| .82060*** .18114 4.530 .0000

Estimated Elasticities – Note Decomposition | Elasticity averaged over observations. | | Attribute is INVC in choice AIR | | Decomposition of Effect if Nest Total Effect| | Trunk Limb Branch Choice Mean St.Dev| | Branch=PRIVATE | | * Choice=AIR .000 .000 -2.456 -3.091 -5.547 3.525 | | Choice=CAR .000 .000 -2.456 2.916 .460 3.178 | | Branch=PUBLIC | | Choice=TRAIN .000 .000 3.846 .000 3.846 4.865 | | Choice=BUS .000 .000 3.846 .000 3.846 4.865 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Attribute is INVC in choice CAR | | Choice=AIR .000 .000 -.757 .650 -.107 .589 | | * Choice=CAR .000 .000 -.757 -.830 -1.587 1.292 | | Choice=TRAIN .000 .000 .647 .000 .647 .605 | | Choice=BUS .000 .000 .647 .000 .647 .605 | | Attribute is INVC in choice TRAIN | | Choice=AIR .000 .000 1.340 .000 1.340 1.475 | | Choice=CAR .000 .000 1.340 .000 1.340 1.475 | | * Choice=TRAIN .000 .000 -1.986 -1.490 -3.475 2.539 | | Choice=BUS .000 .000 -1.986 2.128 .142 1.321 | | Attribute is INVC in choice BUS | | Choice=AIR .000 .000 .547 .000 .547 .871 | | Choice=CAR .000 .000 .547 .000 .547 .871 | | Choice=TRAIN .000 .000 -.841 .888 .047 .678 | | * Choice=BUS .000 .000 -.841 -1.469 -2.310 1.119 | Estimated Elasticities – Note Decomposition

Testing vs. the MNL Log likelihood for the NL model Constrain IV parameters to equal 1 with ; IVSET(list of branches)=[1] Use likelihood ratio test For the example: LogL = -166.68435 LogL (MNL) = -172.94366 Chi-squared with 2 d.f. = 2(-166.68435-(-172.94366)) = 12.51862 The critical value is 5.99 (95%) The MNL is rejected (as usual)

Higher Level Trees E.g., Location (Neighborhood) Housing Type (Rent, Buy, House, Apt) Housing (# Bedrooms)

Degenerate Branches LIMB Travel BRANCH Fly Ground TWIG Air Train Car Bus

NL Model with Degenerate Branch ----------------------------------------------------------- FIML Nested Multinomial Logit Model Dependent variable MODE Log likelihood function -148.63860 --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) GC| .44230*** .11318 3.908 .0001 TTME| -.10199*** .01598 -6.382 .0000 INVT| -.07469*** .01666 -4.483 .0000 INVC| -.44283*** .11437 -3.872 .0001 A_AIR| 3.97654*** 1.13637 3.499 .0005 AIR_HIN1| .02163 .01326 1.631 .1028 A_TRAIN| 6.50129*** 1.01147 6.428 .0000 TRA_HIN2| -.06427*** .01768 -3.635 .0003 A_BUS| 4.52963*** .99877 4.535 .0000 BUS_HIN3| -.01596 .02000 -.798 .4248 |IV parameters, lambda(b|l),gamma(l) FLY| .86489*** .18345 4.715 .0000 GROUND| .24364*** .05338 4.564 .0000 |Underlying standard deviation = pi/(IVparm*sqr(6) FLY| 1.48291*** .31454 4.715 .0000 GROUND| 5.26413*** 1.15331 4.564 .0000

Estimates of a Nested Logit Model NLOGIT ; lhs=mode ; rhs=gc,ttme,invt,invc ; rh2=one,hinc ; choices=air,train,bus,car ; tree=Travel[Fly(Air), Ground(Train,Car,Bus)] ; show tree ; effects:gc(*) ; Describe $

Nested Logit Model ----------------------------------------------------------- FIML Nested Multinomial Logit Model Dependent variable MODE Log likelihood function -168.81283 (-148.63860 with RU1) --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) GC| .06527*** .01787 3.652 .0003 TTME| -.06114*** .01119 -5.466 .0000 INVT| -.01231*** .00283 -4.354 .0000 INVC| -.07018*** .01951 -3.597 .0003 A_AIR| 1.22545 .87245 1.405 .1601 AIR_HIN1| .01501 .01226 1.225 .2206 A_TRAIN| 3.44408*** .68388 5.036 .0000 TRA_HIN2| -.02823*** .00852 -3.311 .0009 A_BUS| 2.58400*** .63247 4.086 .0000 BUS_HIN3| -.00726 .01075 -.676 .4993 |IV parameters, RU2 form = mu(b|l),gamma(l) FLY| 1.00000 ......(Fixed Parameter)...... GROUND| .47778*** .10508 4.547 .0000 |Underlying standard deviation = pi/(IVparm*sqr(6) FLY| 1.28255 ......(Fixed Parameter)...... GROUND| 2.68438*** .59041 4.547 .0000

Using Degenerate Branches to Reveal Scaling LIMB Travel BRANCH Fly Rail Drive GrndPblc TWIG Air Train Car Bus

Scaling in Transport Modes ----------------------------------------------------------- FIML Nested Multinomial Logit Model Dependent variable MODE Log likelihood function -182.42834 The model has 2 levels. Nested Logit form:IVparms=Taub|l,r,Sl|r & Fr.No normalizations imposed a priori Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Attributes in the Utility Functions (beta) GC| .09622** .03875 2.483 .0130 TTME| -.08331*** .02697 -3.089 .0020 INVT| -.01888*** .00684 -2.760 .0058 INVC| -.10904*** .03677 -2.966 .0030 A_AIR| 4.50827*** 1.33062 3.388 .0007 A_TRAIN| 3.35580*** .90490 3.708 .0002 A_BUS| 3.11885** 1.33138 2.343 .0192 |IV parameters, tau(b|l,r),sigma(l|r),phi(r) FLY| 1.65512** .79212 2.089 .0367 RAIL| .92758*** .11822 7.846 .0000 LOCLMASS| 1.00787*** .15131 6.661 .0000 DRIVE| 1.00000 ......(Fixed Parameter)...... NLOGIT ; Lhs=mode ; Rhs=gc,ttme,invt,invc,one ; Choices=air,train,bus,car ; Tree=Fly(Air), Rail(train), LoclMass(bus), Drive(Car) ; ivset:(drive)=[1]$

Simulating the Nested Logit Model NLOGIT ; lhs=mode;rhs=gc,ttme,invt,invc ; rh2=one,hinc ; choices=air,train,bus,car ; tree=Travel[Private(Air,Car),Public(Train,Bus)] ; simulation = * ; scenario:gc(car)=[*]1.5 +------------------------------------------------------+ |Simulations of Probability Model | |Model: FIML: Nested Multinomial Logit Model | |Number of individuals is the probability times the | |number of observations in the simulated sample. | |Column totals may be affected by rounding error. | |The model used was simulated with 210 observations.| ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specification of scenario 1 is: Attribute Alternatives affected Change type Value --------- ------------------------------- ------------------- --------- GC CAR Scale base by value 1.500 Simulated Probabilities (shares) for this scenario: +----------+--------------+--------------+------------------+ |Choice | Base | Scenario | Scenario - Base | | |%Share Number |%Share Number |ChgShare ChgNumber| |AIR | 26.515 56 | 8.854 19 |-17.661% -37 | |TRAIN | 29.782 63 | 12.487 26 |-17.296% -37 | |BUS | 14.504 30 | 71.824 151 | 57.320% 121 | |CAR | 29.200 61 | 6.836 14 |-22.364% -47 | |Total |100.000 210 |100.000 210 | .000% 0 |

An Error Components Model

Error Components Logit Model ----------------------------------------------------------- Error Components (Random Effects) model Dependent variable MODE Log likelihood function -182.27368 Response data are given as ind. choices Replications for simulated probs. = 25 Halton sequences used for simulations ECM model with panel has 70 groups Fixed number of obsrvs./group= 3 Hessian is not PD. Using BHHH estimator Number of obs.= 210, skipped 0 obs --------+-------------------------------------------------- Variable| Coefficient Standard Error b/St.Er. P[|Z|>z] |Nonrandom parameters in utility functions GC| .07293*** .01978 3.687 .0002 TTME| -.10597*** .01116 -9.499 .0000 INVT| -.01402*** .00293 -4.787 .0000 INVC| -.08825*** .02206 -4.000 .0001 A_AIR| 5.31987*** .90145 5.901 .0000 A_TRAIN| 4.46048*** .59820 7.457 .0000 A_BUS| 3.86918*** .67674 5.717 .0000 |Standard deviations of latent random effects SigmaE01| -.27336 3.25167 -.084 .9330 SigmaE02| 1.21988 .94292 1.294 .1958