Loading…

An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices

•We examine the underlying structure of both decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA) and consider how to operationalise these models for use in transport modelling.•We provide a number of methodological improvements for both models as well as a detaile...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Transportation research. Part B: methodological 2021-07, Vol.149, p.250-282
Main Authors: Hancock, Thomas O., Hess, Stephane, Marley, A.A.J., Choudhury, Charisma F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-2758ed549c53049bf2e8e0dc764c072d8896927bcfb3a136c5ce4f8c4def006e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-2758ed549c53049bf2e8e0dc764c072d8896927bcfb3a136c5ce4f8c4def006e3
container_end_page 282
container_issue
container_start_page 250
container_title Transportation research. Part B: methodological
container_volume 149
creator Hancock, Thomas O.
Hess, Stephane
Marley, A.A.J.
Choudhury, Charisma F.
description •We examine the underlying structure of both decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA) and consider how to operationalise these models for use in transport modelling.•We provide a number of methodological improvements for both models as well as a detailed section on the identification of both models.•Both models perform well on typical transport choice datasets.•Results from simulated datasets demonstrate that both models can incorporate alternative specific coefficients and constants.•We test both DFT and MLBA on revealed preference data for the first time, finding that both models have a better model fit than standard choice models in both estimation and out-of-sample validation. Interest in behavioural realism has gradually led to the introduction of alternatives to random utility models (RUMs) as a paradigm for representing choice behaviour, with notable interest, for example, in random regret minimisation (RRM). These more general models continue to rely on a framework where a single value function is calculated for each alternative in each choice setting, and the choice probabilities are calculated by comparing these value functions across alternatives. By contrast, research in mathematical psychology has used a more dynamic approach, where the preference value of each alternative updates over time in a given situation while the decision maker is deliberating about the choice to make. These accumulator models are well suited to accommodating a variety of context effects, and have been shown to give good performance for data collected in laboratory-based settings. The present paper considers two such accumulator models, namely decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA), and addresses limitations that have prevented their use in travel behaviour research. The methodological additions include the ability to capture the influence of socio-demographics, the presence of underlying preferences for specific alternatives, and/or the representation of attributes that have opposite effects on choice probabilities. We develop what we believe to be the first in-depth simultaneous comparison of DFT and MLBA with typical discrete choice models, and test both DFT and MLBA on a revealed preference dataset. We find that each model outperforms typical RUM and RRM implementations for both in-sample estimation and out-of-sample prediction, including in a large scale simulation expe
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.trb.2021.04.001
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2555176644</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0191261521000576</els_id><sourcerecordid>2555176644</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-2758ed549c53049bf2e8e0dc764c072d8896927bcfb3a136c5ce4f8c4def006e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLFu2zAQhokiBeqkfYBuBDpLOVIUJaWTYSRpAQNd3Jmgj6eGhky6JOUib18Zzpzphvu_w_0fY18F1AKEvj_UJe1rCVLUoGoA8YGtRN8NlWx0d8NWIAZRSS3aT-w25wMANArEitl14BZxPs6TLT4GHkd-SjRSooD0wHf_IrdToRSW9Zm4ew326JEfo6Mp8zEmPgdHKRcbnA9_eEk25FNMheNL9Ej5M_s42inTl7d5x34_Pe42P6rtr-efm_W2QiWHUsmu7cm1asC2ATXsR0k9gcNOK4ROur4f9CC7PY77xopGY4ukxh6VoxFAU3PHvl3vnlL8O1Mu5hDn5e0pG9m2rei0VmpJiWsKU8x5KWpOyR9tejUCzMWkOZjFpLmYNKDMYnJhvl-ZpTGdPSWT0V_0OJ8Ii3HRv0P_B4W5fUI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2555176644</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Hancock, Thomas O. ; Hess, Stephane ; Marley, A.A.J. ; Choudhury, Charisma F.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Thomas O. ; Hess, Stephane ; Marley, A.A.J. ; Choudhury, Charisma F.</creatorcontrib><description>•We examine the underlying structure of both decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA) and consider how to operationalise these models for use in transport modelling.•We provide a number of methodological improvements for both models as well as a detailed section on the identification of both models.•Both models perform well on typical transport choice datasets.•Results from simulated datasets demonstrate that both models can incorporate alternative specific coefficients and constants.•We test both DFT and MLBA on revealed preference data for the first time, finding that both models have a better model fit than standard choice models in both estimation and out-of-sample validation. Interest in behavioural realism has gradually led to the introduction of alternatives to random utility models (RUMs) as a paradigm for representing choice behaviour, with notable interest, for example, in random regret minimisation (RRM). These more general models continue to rely on a framework where a single value function is calculated for each alternative in each choice setting, and the choice probabilities are calculated by comparing these value functions across alternatives. By contrast, research in mathematical psychology has used a more dynamic approach, where the preference value of each alternative updates over time in a given situation while the decision maker is deliberating about the choice to make. These accumulator models are well suited to accommodating a variety of context effects, and have been shown to give good performance for data collected in laboratory-based settings. The present paper considers two such accumulator models, namely decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA), and addresses limitations that have prevented their use in travel behaviour research. The methodological additions include the ability to capture the influence of socio-demographics, the presence of underlying preferences for specific alternatives, and/or the representation of attributes that have opposite effects on choice probabilities. We develop what we believe to be the first in-depth simultaneous comparison of DFT and MLBA with typical discrete choice models, and test both DFT and MLBA on a revealed preference dataset. We find that each model outperforms typical RUM and RRM implementations for both in-sample estimation and out-of-sample prediction, including in a large scale simulation experiment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0191-2615</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-2367</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2021.04.001</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Accumulator models ; Accumulators ; Choice modelling ; Decision field theory ; Decision making ; Decision theory ; Demography ; Dynamic models ; Field theory ; Mathematical models ; Multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator ; Preferences ; Psychology ; Quantitative psychology</subject><ispartof>Transportation research. Part B: methodological, 2021-07, Vol.149, p.250-282</ispartof><rights>2021</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Jul 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-2758ed549c53049bf2e8e0dc764c072d8896927bcfb3a136c5ce4f8c4def006e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-2758ed549c53049bf2e8e0dc764c072d8896927bcfb3a136c5ce4f8c4def006e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Thomas O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Stephane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marley, A.A.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choudhury, Charisma F.</creatorcontrib><title>An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices</title><title>Transportation research. Part B: methodological</title><description>•We examine the underlying structure of both decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA) and consider how to operationalise these models for use in transport modelling.•We provide a number of methodological improvements for both models as well as a detailed section on the identification of both models.•Both models perform well on typical transport choice datasets.•Results from simulated datasets demonstrate that both models can incorporate alternative specific coefficients and constants.•We test both DFT and MLBA on revealed preference data for the first time, finding that both models have a better model fit than standard choice models in both estimation and out-of-sample validation. Interest in behavioural realism has gradually led to the introduction of alternatives to random utility models (RUMs) as a paradigm for representing choice behaviour, with notable interest, for example, in random regret minimisation (RRM). These more general models continue to rely on a framework where a single value function is calculated for each alternative in each choice setting, and the choice probabilities are calculated by comparing these value functions across alternatives. By contrast, research in mathematical psychology has used a more dynamic approach, where the preference value of each alternative updates over time in a given situation while the decision maker is deliberating about the choice to make. These accumulator models are well suited to accommodating a variety of context effects, and have been shown to give good performance for data collected in laboratory-based settings. The present paper considers two such accumulator models, namely decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA), and addresses limitations that have prevented their use in travel behaviour research. The methodological additions include the ability to capture the influence of socio-demographics, the presence of underlying preferences for specific alternatives, and/or the representation of attributes that have opposite effects on choice probabilities. We develop what we believe to be the first in-depth simultaneous comparison of DFT and MLBA with typical discrete choice models, and test both DFT and MLBA on a revealed preference dataset. We find that each model outperforms typical RUM and RRM implementations for both in-sample estimation and out-of-sample prediction, including in a large scale simulation experiment.</description><subject>Accumulator models</subject><subject>Accumulators</subject><subject>Choice modelling</subject><subject>Decision field theory</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision theory</subject><subject>Demography</subject><subject>Dynamic models</subject><subject>Field theory</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><issn>0191-2615</issn><issn>1879-2367</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kLFu2zAQhokiBeqkfYBuBDpLOVIUJaWTYSRpAQNd3Jmgj6eGhky6JOUib18Zzpzphvu_w_0fY18F1AKEvj_UJe1rCVLUoGoA8YGtRN8NlWx0d8NWIAZRSS3aT-w25wMANArEitl14BZxPs6TLT4GHkd-SjRSooD0wHf_IrdToRSW9Zm4ew326JEfo6Mp8zEmPgdHKRcbnA9_eEk25FNMheNL9Ej5M_s42inTl7d5x34_Pe42P6rtr-efm_W2QiWHUsmu7cm1asC2ATXsR0k9gcNOK4ROur4f9CC7PY77xopGY4ukxh6VoxFAU3PHvl3vnlL8O1Mu5hDn5e0pG9m2rei0VmpJiWsKU8x5KWpOyR9tejUCzMWkOZjFpLmYNKDMYnJhvl-ZpTGdPSWT0V_0OJ8Ii3HRv0P_B4W5fUI</recordid><startdate>20210701</startdate><enddate>20210701</enddate><creator>Hancock, Thomas O.</creator><creator>Hess, Stephane</creator><creator>Marley, A.A.J.</creator><creator>Choudhury, Charisma F.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20210701</creationdate><title>An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices</title><author>Hancock, Thomas O. ; Hess, Stephane ; Marley, A.A.J. ; Choudhury, Charisma F.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-2758ed549c53049bf2e8e0dc764c072d8896927bcfb3a136c5ce4f8c4def006e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Accumulator models</topic><topic>Accumulators</topic><topic>Choice modelling</topic><topic>Decision field theory</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision theory</topic><topic>Demography</topic><topic>Dynamic models</topic><topic>Field theory</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hancock, Thomas O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Stephane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marley, A.A.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Choudhury, Charisma F.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Transportation research. Part B: methodological</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hancock, Thomas O.</au><au>Hess, Stephane</au><au>Marley, A.A.J.</au><au>Choudhury, Charisma F.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices</atitle><jtitle>Transportation research. Part B: methodological</jtitle><date>2021-07-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>149</volume><spage>250</spage><epage>282</epage><pages>250-282</pages><issn>0191-2615</issn><eissn>1879-2367</eissn><abstract>•We examine the underlying structure of both decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA) and consider how to operationalise these models for use in transport modelling.•We provide a number of methodological improvements for both models as well as a detailed section on the identification of both models.•Both models perform well on typical transport choice datasets.•Results from simulated datasets demonstrate that both models can incorporate alternative specific coefficients and constants.•We test both DFT and MLBA on revealed preference data for the first time, finding that both models have a better model fit than standard choice models in both estimation and out-of-sample validation. Interest in behavioural realism has gradually led to the introduction of alternatives to random utility models (RUMs) as a paradigm for representing choice behaviour, with notable interest, for example, in random regret minimisation (RRM). These more general models continue to rely on a framework where a single value function is calculated for each alternative in each choice setting, and the choice probabilities are calculated by comparing these value functions across alternatives. By contrast, research in mathematical psychology has used a more dynamic approach, where the preference value of each alternative updates over time in a given situation while the decision maker is deliberating about the choice to make. These accumulator models are well suited to accommodating a variety of context effects, and have been shown to give good performance for data collected in laboratory-based settings. The present paper considers two such accumulator models, namely decision field theory (DFT) and the multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator (MLBA), and addresses limitations that have prevented their use in travel behaviour research. The methodological additions include the ability to capture the influence of socio-demographics, the presence of underlying preferences for specific alternatives, and/or the representation of attributes that have opposite effects on choice probabilities. We develop what we believe to be the first in-depth simultaneous comparison of DFT and MLBA with typical discrete choice models, and test both DFT and MLBA on a revealed preference dataset. We find that each model outperforms typical RUM and RRM implementations for both in-sample estimation and out-of-sample prediction, including in a large scale simulation experiment.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.trb.2021.04.001</doi><tpages>33</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0191-2615
ispartof Transportation research. Part B: methodological, 2021-07, Vol.149, p.250-282
issn 0191-2615
1879-2367
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2555176644
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Accumulator models
Accumulators
Choice modelling
Decision field theory
Decision making
Decision theory
Demography
Dynamic models
Field theory
Mathematical models
Multi-attribute linear ballistic accumulator
Preferences
Psychology
Quantitative psychology
title An accumulation of preference: Two alternative dynamic models for understanding transport choices
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-02T01%3A23%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20accumulation%20of%20preference:%20Two%20alternative%20dynamic%20models%20for%20understanding%20transport%20choices&rft.jtitle=Transportation%20research.%20Part%20B:%20methodological&rft.au=Hancock,%20Thomas%20O.&rft.date=2021-07-01&rft.volume=149&rft.spage=250&rft.epage=282&rft.pages=250-282&rft.issn=0191-2615&rft.eissn=1879-2367&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.trb.2021.04.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2555176644%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c429t-2758ed549c53049bf2e8e0dc764c072d8896927bcfb3a136c5ce4f8c4def006e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2555176644&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true