Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation

References

• Allenby Greg M., Rossi Peter E. Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econometrics (1999) 89(March/April):57–78Google Scholar
• Andrews Rick L., Ainslie Andrews, Currim Imran S. An empirical comparison of logit choice models with discrete versus continuous representations of heterogeneity. J. Marketing Res. (2002) 39(November):479–487Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora Neeraj, Allenby Greg M., Ginter James L. A hierarchical Bayes model of primary and secondary demand. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(1):29–44Link, Google Scholar
• Arora Neeraj, Joel Huber. Improving parameter estimates and model prediction by aggregate customization in choice experiments. J. Consumer Res. (2001) 28(September):273–283Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bucklin Randolph E., Srinivasan V. Determining interbrand substitutability through survey measurement of consumer preference structures. J. Marketing Res. (1991) 28(February):58–71Crossref, Google Scholar
• Currim Imran S. Using segmentation approaches for better prediction and understanding from consumer mode choice models. J. Marketing Res. (1981) 18(August):301–309Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahan Ely, Hauser John R. The virtual customer. J. Product Innovation Management (2002) 19(5):332–354Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dawes Robin M., Corrigan Bernard. Linear models in decision making. Psych. Bull. (1974) 81(March):95–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Einhorn Hillel J. Use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models as a function of task and amount of information. Organ. Behavior Human Performance (1971) 6:1–27Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elrod Terry, Louviere Jordan, Davey Krishnakumar S. An empirical comparison of ratings-based and choice-based conjoint models. J. Marketing Res. (1992) 29(3 August):368–377Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evgeniou Theodoros, Boussios Constantinos, Zacharia Giorgos. Generalized robust conjoint estimation. (2002) . Working paper, INSEAD, Fontainebleau, FranceGoogle Scholar
• Freund Robert. Projective transformations for interior-point algorithms, and a superlinearly convergent algorithm for the W-center problem. Math. Programming (1993) 58:385–414Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freund Robert, Roundy R., Todd M. J. Identifying the set of always active constraints in a system of linear inequalities by a single linear program. (1985) (WP 1674-85, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Green Paul E. Hybrid models for conjoint analysis: An expository review. J. Marketing Res. (1984) 21(2):155–169Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green Paul E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. J. Consumer Res. (1978) 5(2):103–123Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green Paul E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice. J. Marketing (1990) 54(4):3–19Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green Paul E., Helsen Kristiaan, Shandler Bruce. Conjoint internal validity under alternative profile presentations. J. Consumer Res. (1988) 15(December):392–397Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green Paul E., Goldberg Stephen M., Montemayor Mila. A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis. J. Marketing (1981) 33–41Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green Paul E., Krieger Abba, Agarwal Manoj K. Adaptive conjoint analysis: Some caveats and suggestions. J. Marketing Res. (1991) 23(2):215–222Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green Paul E., Krieger Abba, Wind Jerry. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces (2001) 21:S56–S73(3, Part 2 of 2(May-June)Crossref, Google Scholar
• Green Paul E., Krieger Abba, Jerry Wind. Buyer choice simulators, optimizers, and dynamic models. Advances in Marketing Research: Progress and Prospects (2002) (Wharton Press, Philadelphia, PA) Google Scholar
• Griffin Abbie, Hauser John R. The voice of the customer. Marketing Sci. (1993) 12(1):1–27Link, Google Scholar
• Gritzmann P., Klee V. Computational complexity of inner and outer J-radii of polytopes in finite-dimensional normed spaces. Math. Programming (1993) 59(2):163–213Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hadley G.Linear Algebra (1961) (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. Reading, MA) Google Scholar
• Hauser John R., Gaskin Steven P. Application of the “Defender” consumer model. Marketing Sci. (1984) 3(4):327–351Link, Google Scholar
• Hauser John R., Rao Vithala, Jerry Wind. Conjoint analysis, related modeling, and applications. Advances in Marketing Research: Progress and Prospects (2003) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Hauser John R., Shugan Steven M. Intensity measures of consumer preference. Oper. Res. (1980) 28(2):278–320Link, Google Scholar
• Hoaglin David C., Mosteller Frederick, Tukey John W.Understanding Robust and Exploratory Data Analysis (1983) (John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York) Google Scholar
• Huber Joel. Predicting preferences on experimental bundles of attributes: A comparison of models. J. Marketing Res. (1975) 12(August):290–297Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber Joel, Klaus Zwerina. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Marketing Res. (1996) 33(August):307–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber Joel, Wittink Dick R., Fiedler John A., Richard Miller. The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation procedures in predicting choice. J. Marketing Res. (1993) 30(1):105–114Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jedidi Kamel, Manchanda Puneet, Jagpal Sharan. Measuring heterogeneous reservation prices for product bundles. Marketing Sci. (2003) 22(1). ForthcomingLink, Google Scholar
• Johnson Eric J., Meyer Robert J., Ghose Sanjoy. When choice models fail: Compensatory models in negatively correlated environments. J. Marketing Res. (1989) 26(3):255–270Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson Richard. Accuracy of utility estimation in ACA. (1987) . Working paper Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WAGoogle Scholar
• Johnson Richard. Comment on “Adaptive conjoint analysis: Some caveats and suggestions.”. J. Marketing Res. (1991) 28(May):223–225Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson Richard. The joys and sorrows of implementing HB methods for conjoint analysis. (1999) . Working paper Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WAGoogle Scholar
• Judge G. G., Griffiths W. E., Hill R. C., Lutkepohl H., Lee T. C.The Theory and Practice of Econometrics (1985) (John Wiley and Sons, New York) 571Google Scholar
• Karmarkar N. A new polynomial time algorithm for linear programming. Combinatorica (1984) 4:373–395Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhfeld Warren F., Tobias Randall D., Garratt Mark. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J. Marketing Res. (1994) 31(4):545–557Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leigh Thomas W., MacKay David B., Summers John O. Reliability and validity of conjoint analysis and self-explicated weights: A comparison. J. Marketing Res. (1984) 21(4):456–462Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lenk Peter J., DeSarbo Wayne S., Green Paul E., Young Martin R. Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: Recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(2):173–191Link, Google Scholar
• Liechty John, Ramaswamy Venkatram, Cohen Steven. Choice-Menus for mass customization: An experimental approach for analyzing customer demand with an application to a Web based information service. J. Marketing Res. (2001) 38(2):183–196Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere Jordan J., Hensher David A., Swait Joffre D.Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application (2000) (Cambridge University Press, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden Daniel. Disaggregate behavioral travel demand's RUM side: A thirty-year retrospective. (2000) . Working paper University of California, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
• Moore William L. A cross-validity comparison of conjoint analysis and choice models. (2003) . Working paper University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UTGoogle Scholar
• Moore William L., Semenik Richard J. Measuring preferences with hybrid conjoint analysis: The impact of a different number of attributes in the master design. J. Bus. Res. (1988) 261–274Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nesterov Y., Nemirovskii A. Interior-point polynomial algorithms in convex programming. SIAM (1994) . Philadelphia, PAGoogle Scholar
• Ofek Elie, Srinivasan V. How much does the market value an improvement in a product attribute? Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(4):98–411Link, Google Scholar
• Orme Bryan. ACA, CBC, or both?: Effective strategies for conjoint research. (1999) . Working paper, Sawtooth Software, Sequim, WAGoogle Scholar
• Orme Bryan, Christopher King W. Improving ACA algorithms: Challenging a twenty-year-old approach. Pres. Adv. Res. Tech. Conf. (2002) . Vail, CO, June 3Google Scholar
• Page Albert L., Rosenbaum Harold F. Redesigning product lines with conjoint analysis: How Sunbeam does it. J. Product Innovation Management (1989) 4:120–137Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reibstein David, Bateson John E. G., Boulding William. Conjoint analysis reliability: Empirical findings. Marketing Sci. (1988) 7(3):271–286Link, Google Scholar
• Robinson P. J., Montgomery David B., Wittink Dick. Applications of conjoint analysis to pricing problems. Market Measurement and Analysis: Proc. 1979 ORSA/TIMS Conf. Marketing (1980) 183–205Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Sandor Zsolt, Wedel Michel. Designing conjoint choice experiments using managers' prior beliefs. J. Marketing Res. (2001) 38(4):430–444Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandor Zsolt, Wedel Michel. Profile construction in experimental choice designs for mixed logit models. Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(4):398–411Link, Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software, Inc. ACA system: Adaptive conjoint analysis. ACA Manual (1996) (Sequim, WA)Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software, Inc. The ACA/hierarchical Bayes technical paper. (2001) (Sawtooth Software, Inc., Sequim, WA) Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software, Inc. (2002) (Sawtooth Software, Inc., Sequim, WA) . ACA 5.0 Technical paperGoogle Scholar
• Sonnevend G. An “analytic” center for polyhedrons and new classes of global algorithms for linear (smooth, convex) programming. Proc. 12th IFIP Conf. System Modeling and Optim. (1985a) (Budapest, Hungary)Google Scholar
• Sonnevend G. A new method for solving a set of linear (convex) inequalities and its applications for identification and optimization. (1985b) . Preprint Department of Numerical Analysis, Institute of Mathematics, Eötvös University, Budapest, HungaryGoogle Scholar
• Srinivasan V. A conjunctive-compensatory approach to the self-explication of multiattributed preferences. Decision Sci. (1988) 19(2):295–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srinivasan V., Park Chan Su. Surprising robustness of the self-explicated approach to customer preference structure measurement. J. Marketing Res. (1997) 34(May):286–291Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srinivasan V., Shocker Allan D. Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika (1973) 38(3):337–369Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ter Hofstede Frenkel, Kim Youngchan, Wedel Michel. Bayesian prediction in hybrid conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. (2002) 39(May):253–261Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tourangeau Roger, Rips Lance J., Rasinski Kenneth. The Psychology of Survey Response (2000) (Cambridge University Press, New York) 197–229Crossref, Google Scholar
• Toubia Olivier, Simester Duncan, Hauser John R. Polyhedral methods for adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis. J. Marketing Res. (2003) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Tukey John W., Olkin I., Ghurye S., Hoeffding W., Madow W., Mann H. A survey of sampling from contaminated distributions. Contributions to Probability and Statistics (1960) (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) 448–485Google Scholar
• Urban Glen L., Katz Gerald M. Pre-test market models: Validation and managerial implications. J. Marketing Res. (1983) 20(August):221–234Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vaidja P., Megiddo N. A locally well-behaved potential function and a simple Newton-type method for finding the center of a polytope. Progress in Mathematical Programming: Interior Points and Related Methods (1989) (Springer, New York) 79–90Crossref, Google Scholar
• White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica (1980) 48:817–838Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wittink Dick R., Montgomery David B., Beckwit Neil. Predictive validity of trade-off analysis for alternative segmentation schemes. Educators' Conf. Proc. 1979 AMA (1979) (American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL) Google Scholar
• Wittink Dick R., Cattin Philippe. Alternative estimation methods for conjoint analysis: A Monte Carlo study. J. Marketing Res. (1981) 18(February):101–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wright Peter, Ann Kriewall Mary. State-of-mind effects on accuracy with which utility functions predict marketplace utility. J. Marketing Res. (1980) 17(August):277–293Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yang Sha, Allenby Greg M., Fennell Geraldine. Modeling variation in brand preference: The roles of objective environment and motivating conditions. Marketing Sci. (2002) 21(1):14–31Link, Google Scholar