A Dynamic Kernel Logit Model for the Analysis of Longitudinal Discrete Choice Data: Properties and Computational Assessment

References

• Axhausen K. W., Garling T. Activity-based approaches to travel analysis: Conceptual frameworks, models, and research problems. Transport Rev. (1992) 12(4):323–341Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumgartner A., Binder K.Applications of the Monte Carlo Method in Statistical Physics (1984) (Springer-Verlag, New York) Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M., Bolduc D. Multinomial probit with logit kernel and a general parametric specification of the covariance structure. (1996) . Working paper, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Ben-Akiva M., Lerman S.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand (1985) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) Google Scholar
• Bhat C. R. Recent methodological advances relevant to activity and travel behavior analysis. Internat. Assoc. Travel Behavior Res. Conf. (1997) Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
• Bhat C. R. Accommodating flexible substitution patterns in multi-dimensional choice modeling: Formulation and application to travel mode and departure time choice. Transportation Res. B (1999) 32:455–466Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhat C. R. Quasi-random maximum simulated likelihood estimation of the mixed multinomial logit model. Transportation Res. B (2001) 35(7):677–693Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borsch-Supan A., Hajivassiliou V. Smooth unbiased multivariate probability simulators for maximum likelihood estimation of limited-dependent variable models. J. Econometrics (1990) 58:347–368Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brownstone D., Train K. Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. J. Econometrics (1998) 89:109–129Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bunch D. S. Estimability in the multinomial probit model. Transportation Res. B (1991) 25(1):1–12Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daganzo C. F.Multinomial Probit: The Theory and its Application to Travel Demand Forecasting (1979) (Academic Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Daganzo C. F., Sheffi Y. Multinomial probit with time series data: Unifying state dependence and serial correlation models. Environ. Planning A (1982) 14:1377–1388Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dansie B. R. Parameter estimability in the multinomial probit model. Transportation Res. B (1985) 19:526–528Crossref, Google Scholar
• Domencich T. A., McFadden D.Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis (1975) (North-Holland Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) Google Scholar
• Garrido R. A., Mahmassani H. S. Forecasting freight transportation demand with the space-time multinomial probit model. Transportation Res. B (2000) 34:403–418Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geweke J. F., Keane M. P., Runkle D. E. Statistical inference in the multinomial multiperiod probit model. J. Econometrics (1997) 80:125–165Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goett A., Hudson K., Train K. Customer choice among retail energy suppliers: The willingness-to-pay for service attributes. Energy J. (2000) 21(4):1–28Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golub G. H., Van Loan C. F.Matrix Computations (1996) (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD) Google Scholar
• Hajivassiliou V. A., McFadden D., Ruud P. Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives: Theoretical and computational results. J. Econometrics (1996) 72:85–134Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman J. J., Manski C. F., McFadden D. Statistical models for discrete panel data. Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications (1981) (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) 114–178Google Scholar
• Hensher D., Greene W. The mixed logit model: The state of practice. Transportation (2003) 30(2):133–176Crossref, Google Scholar
• Horowitz J. L. Reconsidering the multinomial probit model. Transportation Res. B (1991) 25(6):432–438Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson N. L., Kotz S.Continuous Univariate Distributions (1970) (Houghton Mifflin Publishers, New York) Google Scholar
• Jou R.-C., Mahmassani H. S., Ortuzar J. D., Hensher D., Jara-Diaz S. Day-to-day dynamics of urban commuter departure time and route switching decisions: Joint model estimation. Travel Behaviour Research: Updating the State of Play (1998) (Elsevier Science Limited, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 365–384Google Scholar
• Keane M. P. A note on identification in the multinomial probit model. J. Bus. Econom. Statist. (1992) 10(2):193–200Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kitamura R. Panel analysis in transportation planning—An overview. Transportation Res. A (1990) 24(6):401–416Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kohlas J.Monte Carlo Simulation in Operations Research. Lecture Notes in Economic and Mathematical Systems (1972) 63(Springer-Verlag, New York) 158–162Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koppelman F. S., Wen G. H. The paired combinatorial logit model: Properties, estimation and application. Transportation Res. B (2000) 34(2):75–89Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lam S.-H. Multinomial probit model estimation: Computational procedures and applications. (1991) . Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
• Lee L. F. On the efficiency of methods of simulated moments and maximum simulated likelihood estimation of discrete choice models. Econometric Theory (1992) 8(4):518–552Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liu Y. S., Mahmassani H. S. Global maximum likelihood estimation procedure for multinomial probit (MNP) model parameters. Transportation Res. B (2000) 34:419–449Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahmassani H. S., Lee-Gosselin M., Stopher P. Dynamics of commuter behavior: Recent research and continuing challenges. Understanding Travel Behavior in an Era of Change (1997) (Pergamon Press, New York) 279–313Google Scholar
• Mahmassani H. S., Yen J. R., Herman R., Sullivan M. A. Employee attitudes and stated preferences toward telecommuting: An exploratory analysis. Transportation Res. Record (1994) 1413:31–41Google Scholar
• McFadden D., Train K. Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econometrics (2000) 15(5):447–470Crossref, Google Scholar
• Munizaga M., Alvarez-Daziano R. Evaluation of mixed logit as a practical modelling alternative. Eur. Transport Conf. (2002) Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
• Revelt D., Train K. Mixed logit with repeated choices: Households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. The Rev. Econom. Statist. (1998) 647–657Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roy R., Chintagunta P. K., Haldar S. A framework for investigating habits, “the hand of the past,” and heterogeneity in dynamic brand choice. Marketing Sci. (1996) 15(3):280–299Link, Google Scholar
• Srinivasan K. K., Mahmassani H. S. Role of congestion and information in tripmakers’ dynamic decision processes: An experimental investigation. Transportation Res. Record (1999) 1676:44–52Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train K. Recreation demand models with taste variation over people. Land Econom. (1998) 74(2):230–239Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train K.Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2003) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walker J. Extended discrete choice models: Integrated framework, flexible error structures, and latent variables. (2001) . Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar