Modeling Multimodal Continuous Heterogeneity in Conjoint Analysis—A Sparse Learning Approach

References

• Allenby GM, Rossi PE (1998) Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econometrics 89(1):57–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allenby GM, Arora N, Ginter JL (1998) On the heterogeneity of demand. J. Marketing Res. 35(3):384–389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrews RL, Currim IS (2003) A comparison of segment retention criteria for finite mixture logit models. J. Marketing Res. 40(2):235–243.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrews RL, Ainslie A, Currim IS (2002a) An empirical comparison of logit choice models with discrete versus continuous representations of heterogeneity. J. Marketing Res. 39(4): 479–487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andrews RL, Ansari A, Currim IS (2002b) Hierarchical Bayes versus finite mixture conjoint analysis models: A comparison of fit, prediction, and partworth recovery. J. Marketing Res. 39(1): 87–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ansari A, Mela CF (2003) E-customization. J. Marketing Res. 40(2):131–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyriou A, Evgeniou T, Pontil M (2008) Convex multi-task feature learning. Machine Learn. 73(3):243–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bach F, Jenatton R, Mairal J, Obozinski G (2011) Convex optimization with sparsity-inducing norms. Sra S, Nowozin S, Wright SJ, eds. Optimization for Machine Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge MA), 19–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd S, Vandenberghe L (2004) Convex Optimization (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Celeux G, Hurn M, Robert CP (2000) Computational and inferential difficulties with mixture posterior distributions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 95(451):957–970.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen X, Lin Q, Kim S, Carbonell JG, Xing EP (2012) Smoothing proximal gradient method for general structured sparse regression. Ann. Appl. Statist. 6(2):719–752.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chintagunta PK, Jain DC, Vilcassim NJ (1991) Investigating heterogeneity in brand preferences in logit models for panel data. J. Marketing Res. 28(4):417–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cui D, Curry D (2005) Prediction in marketing using the support vector machine. Marketing Sci. 24(4):595–615.Link, Google Scholar
• Evgeniou T, Boussios C, Zacharia G (2005) Generalized robust conjoint estimation. Marketing Sci. 24(3):415–429.Link, Google Scholar
• Evgeniou T, Pontil M, Toubia O (2007) A convex optimization approach to modeling consumer heterogeneity in conjoint estimation. Marketing Sci. 26(6):805–818.Link, Google Scholar
• Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J. Marketing 54(4):3–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The Elements of Statistical Learning, Springer Series in Statistics (Springer-Verlag, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hocking TD, Joulin A, Bach F, Vert JP (2011) Clusterpath: An algorithm for clustering using convex fusion penalties. Proc. 28th Internat. Conf. Machine Learn., Bellevue, WA.Google Scholar
• Iyengar R, Jedidi K, Kohli R (2008) A conjoint approach to multipart pricing. J. Marketing Res. 45(2):195–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jedidi K, Zhang ZJ (2002) Augmenting conjoint analysis to estimate consumer reservation price. Management Sci. 48(10):1350–1368.Link, Google Scholar
• Jenatton R, Gramfort A, Michel V, Obozinski G, Eger E, Bach F, Thirion B (2012) Multiscale mining of fMRI data with hierarchical structured sparsity. SIAM J. Imaging Sci. 5(3):835–856.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamakura WA, Russell GJ (1989) A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. J. Marketing Res. 26(4):379–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim JG, Menzefricke U, Feinberg FM (2004) Assessing heterogeneity in discrete choice models using a Dirichlet process prior. Rev. Marketing Sci. 2(1):1–39.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim S, Xing EP (2012) Tree-guided group lasso for multi-response regression with structured sparsity, with an application to eQTL mapping. Ann. Appl. Statist. 6(3):1095–1117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lenk PJ, DeSarbo WS, Green PE, Young MR (1996) Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: Recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Sci. 15(2):173–191.Link, Google Scholar
• Li Y, Ansari A (2013) A Bayesian semiparametric approach for endogeneity and heterogeneity in choice models. Management Sci. 60(5):1161–1179.Link, Google Scholar
• Luo L (2011) Product line design for consumer durables: An integrated marketing and engineering approach. J. Marketing Res. 48(1):128–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Qin Z, Goldfarb D (2012) Structured sparsity via alternating direction methods. J. Machine Learn. Res. 13(1):1435–1468.Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, Allenby GM, McCulloch R (2005) Bayesian Statistics and Marketing (John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rossi PE, McCulloch RE, Allenby GM (1996) The value of purchase history data in target marketing. Marketing Sci. 15(4):321–340.Link, Google Scholar
• Shao J (1993) Linear model selection by cross-validation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88(422):486–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A (2002) Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J. Roy. Statist. Soc.: Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 64(4):583–639.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephens M (2000) Dealing with label switching in mixture models. J. Roy. Statist. Soc.: Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 62(4):795–809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. Roy. Statist. Soc.: Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 58(1): 267–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tibshirani R, Saunders M, Rosset S, Zhu J, Knight K (2004) Sparsity and smoothness via the fused lasso. J. Roy. Statist. Soc.: Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 67(1):91–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Hauser JR, Simester DI (2004) Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. 41(1):116–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia O, Simester DI, Hauser JR, Dahan E (2003) Fast polyhedral adaptive conjoint estimation. Marketing Sci. 22(3):273–303.Link, Google Scholar
• Vapnik V (1998) Statistical Learning Theory (Wiley, New York).Google Scholar
• Vriens M, Wedel M, Wilms T (1996) Metric conjoint segmentation methods: A Monte Carlo comparison. J. Marketing Res. 33(1):73–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wahba G (1990) Spline Models for Observational Data (SIAM, Philadelphia).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. J. Marketing 53(3):91–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yuan M, Lin Y (2005) Model selection and estimation in regression with grouped variables. J. Roy. Statist. Soc.: Ser. B (Statist. Methodology) 68(1):49–67.Crossref, Google Scholar