On Theoretical and Empirical Aspects of Marginal Distribution Choice Models

References

• Allenby GM, Rossi PE (1999) Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econometrics 89(1–2):57–78.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson SP, De Palma A, Thisse J-F (1988) A representative consumer theory of the logit model. Internat. Econom. Rev. 29(3):461–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argyriou A, Evgeniou T, Pontil M (2008) Convex multi-task feature learning. Machine Learn. 73(3):243–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertsimas D, Natarajan K, Teo CP (2006) Persistence in discrete optimization under data uncertainty. Math. Programming, Ser. B 108(2–3):251–274.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhat CR (1995) A heteroscedastic extreme value model of intercity mode choice. Transportation Res. Part B 29(6):471–483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brownstone D, Small KAK (1989) Efficient estimation of nested logit models. J. Bus. Econom. Statist., Amer. Statist. Assoc. 7(1):67–74.Google Scholar
• Chrzan K, Elrod T (1995) Choice-based approach for large numbers of attributes. Marketing News 29(1):20–24.Google Scholar
• Daganzo CF, Kusnic M (1993) Two properties of the nested logit model. Transportation Sci. 27(4):395–400.Link, Google Scholar
• Danaher PJ (2007) Modeling page views across multiple websites with an application to Internet reach and frequency prediction. Marketing Sci. 26(3):422–437.Link, Google Scholar
• Danaher PJ, Smith MS (2011) Modeling multivaraite distributions using copulas: Applications in marketing. Marketing Sci. 30(1):4–21.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
• Farias VF, Jagabathula S, Shah D (2013) A nonparametric approach to modeling choice with limited data. Management Sci. 59(2):305–322.Link, Google Scholar
• Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N (2010) The generalized multinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. 29(3):393–421.Link, Google Scholar
• Greene WH (2011) Econometric Analysis, 7th ed. (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Hofbauer J, Sandholm WH (2002) On the global convergence of stochastic fictitious play. Econometrica 70(6):2265–2294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hoffman SD, Duncan GJ (1988) Multinomial and conditional logit discrete-choice models in demography. Demography 25(3):415–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Louviere J (1988) Conjoint analysis modelling of stated preferences. A review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. J. Transport Econom. Policy 22(1):93–119.Google Scholar
• Louviere J, Meyer RJ (2007) Formal choice models of informal choices: What choice modeling research can (and can't) learn from behavioral theory. Malhotra NK, ed. Review of Marketing Research (M. E. Sharpe, New York), 3–32.Google Scholar
• Louviere J, Swait J (2010) Discussion of “alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: Theory, measurement and experimental test.” Marketing Sci. 29(1):18–22.Link, Google Scholar
• Louviere J, Street S, Carson R, Ainslie A, Deshazo JR, Cameron T, Hensher D, Kohn R, Marley T (2002) Dissecting the random component of utility. Marketing Lett. 13(3):177–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manski CF (1975) Maximum score estimation of the stochastic utility model of choice. Zarembka P, ed. J. Econometrics 3:205–228.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Zarembka P, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics (Academic Press, New York), 105–142.Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1977) A closed-form multinomial choice model without the independence from irrelevant alternatives restrictions. Working Paper 7703. Urban Travel Demand Forecasting Project, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1978) Modelling the choice of residential location. Karlqvist A, Lundqvist L, Snickars F, Weibull J, eds. Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models (North Holland, Amsterdam), 75–96.Google Scholar
• Natarajan K, Song M, Teo C-P (2009) Persistency model and its applications in choice modeling. Management Sci. 55(3):453–469.Link, Google Scholar
• Nelsen RB (2006) An Introduction to Copulas, 2nd ed., Springer Series in Statistics (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Norets A, Takahashi S (2013) On the surjectivity of the mapping betweeen utilities and choice probabilities. Quant. Econom. 4(1):149–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park Y-H, Fader PS (2004) Modeling browsing behavior at multiple websites. Marketing Sci. 23(2):280–303.Link, Google Scholar
• Salisbury LC, Feinberg FM (2010) Alleviating the constant stochastic variance assumption in decision research: Theory, measurement and experimental test. Marketing Sci. 29(1):1–17.Link, Google Scholar
• Sawtooth Software (2008) CBC v6.0. Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim, WA. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/cbctech.pdf.Google Scholar
• Schweidel DA, Fader PS, Bradlow ET (2008) A bivariate timing model of consumer acquisition and retention. Marketing Sci. 27(5):829–843.Link, Google Scholar
• Seetharman PB, Chib S, Ainslie A, Boatwright P, Chan T, Gupta S, Mehta N, Rao V, Strijnev A (2005) Models of multi-category choice behavior. Marketing Lett. 16(3/4):239–254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sklar A (1959) Fonctions de répartition á n dimensions et leurs marges. Publ. Inst. Statist. Univ. Paris 8:229–231.Google Scholar
• Steenburgh TJ, Ainslie AS (2010) Substitution patterns of the ranndom coefficients logit. HBS Marketing Unit Working Paper 10-053, Harvard Business School, Boston. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1535329.Google Scholar
• Train K (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Second ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weiss G (1986) Stochastic bounds on distributions of optimal value functions with applications to PERT, network flows and reliability. Oper. Res. 34(4):595–605.Link, Google Scholar