The Invariant Proportion of Substitution Property (IPS) of Discrete-Choice Models

References

• Bell D. R., Chiang J., Padmanabhan V. The decomposition of promotional response. Marketing Sci. (1999) 18(4):504–526Link, Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M. The structure of travel demand models. (1973) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) . PhD Thesis, Department of Civil EngineeringGoogle Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M. Note on the specification of a logit model with utility functions that include attributes of competing alternatives. (1974) . Working paper, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Bresnahan T. F., Stern S., Trajtenberg M. Market segmentation and the sources of rents from innovation: Personal computers in the late 1980s. RAND J. Econom. (1997) 28(0):S17–S44Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bucklin R. E., Gupta S., Siddarth S. Determining segmentation in sales response across consumer purchase behaviors. J. Marketing Res. (1998) 35(2):189–197Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chiang J. A simultaneous approach to the whether, what, and how much to buy questions. Marketing Sci. (1991) 10:297–315Link, Google Scholar
• Chintagunta P. K. Investigating purchase incidence, brand choice, and purchase quantity decisions of households. Marketing Sci. (1993) 12:184–208Link, Google Scholar
• Chu C. A paired combinatorial logit model for travel demand analysis. Proc. Fifth World Conf. Transportation Res. (1989) 4Ventura, CA:295–309Google Scholar
• Daly A. J., Zachary S., Hensher D. A., Dalvi Q. Improved multiple choice models. Determinants of Travel Choice (1978) (Saxon House, Sussex, UK) 335–357Google Scholar
• Daly A., Bierlaire M. A general and operational representation of generalised extreme value models. Transportation Res. Part B (2006) 40(4):285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Debreu G. Review of R. D. Luce Individual Choice Behavior. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1960) 50:186–188Google Scholar
• Gupta S. Impact of sales promotions on when, what, and how much to buy. J. Marketing Res. (1988) 25(4):342–355Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koppelman F. S., Sethi V., Hensher D. A., Button K. J. Closed form discrete choice models. Handbook of Transportation Modeling (2000) (Pergamon, Oxford, UK) 211–228Google Scholar
• Koppelman F. S., Wen C.-H. The paired combinatorial logit model: Properties, estimation, and application. Transportation Res. Part B (2000) 34(2):75–89Crossref, Google Scholar
• Luce R. D., Suppes P., Luce R. D., Bush R. R., Galanter E. Preference, utility and subjective probability. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, III (1965) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) 249–410Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Zarembka P. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics (1974) (Academic Press, New York) 105–142Google Scholar
• McFadden D. On independence, structure, and simultaneity in transportation demand analysis. (1975) . Working Paper 7511, Urban Travel Demand Forecasting Project, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
• McFadden D., Karlqvist A., Lundqvist L., Snickars F., Weibull J. Modeling the choice of residential location. Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models (1978) (North Holland, Amsterdam) 75–96Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Griliches Z., Intrilligator M. Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. Handbooks of Econometrics (1984) II(Elsevier, Amsterdam) 1396–1456Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Train K., Tye W. B. An application of diagnostic tests for the independence from irrelevance alternatives property of the multinomial logit model. Transportation Record Res. (1978) 637:39–46Google Scholar
• Steenburgh T. J. Measuring consumer and competitive impact with elasticity decompositions. J. Marketing Res. (2007) 44(4):636–646Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swait J. Choice set generation within the generalized extreme value family of discrete choice models. Transportation Res. Part B (2001) 35(7):285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train K.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. (1972) 79(4):281–299Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Heerde H. J., Gupta S., Wittink D. R. Is 75% of the sales promotion bump due to brand switching? No, only 33% is. J. Marketing Res. (2003) 40(4):481–491Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vovsha P. The cross-nested logit model: Application to mode choice in the Tel-Aviv metropolitan area. Transportation Res. Board, 76th Annual Meeting (1997) (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.) . Paper 970387Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wen C.-H., Koppelman F. S. The generalized nested logit model. Transportation Res. Part B (2001) 35(7):627–641Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams H. On the formation of travel demand models and the economic evaluation measures of user benefit. Environment Plann. A (1977) 9(3):285–344Crossref, Google Scholar