Important: Read this before posting to this forum

  1. This forum is for questions related to the use of Apollo. We will answer some general choice modelling questions too, where appropriate, and time permitting. We cannot answer questions about how to estimate choice models with other software packages.
  2. There is a very detailed manual for Apollo available at http://www.ApolloChoiceModelling.com/manual.html. This contains detailed descriptions of the various Apollo functions, and numerous examples are available at http://www.ApolloChoiceModelling.com/examples.html. In addition, help files are available for all functions, using e.g. ?apollo_mnl
  3. Before asking a question on the forum, users are kindly requested to follow these steps:
    1. Check that the same issue has not already been addressed in the forum - there is a search tool.
    2. Ensure that the correct syntax has been used. For any function, detailed instructions are available directly in Apollo, e.g. by using ?apollo_mnl for apollo_mnl
    3. Check the frequently asked questions section on the Apollo website, which discusses some common issues/failures. Please see http://www.apollochoicemodelling.com/faq.html
    4. Make sure that R is using the latest official release of Apollo.
  4. If the above steps do not resolve the issue, then users should follow these steps when posting a question:
    1. provide full details on the issue, including the entire code and output, including any error messages
    2. posts will not immediately appear on the forum, but will be checked by a moderator first. This may take a day or two at busy times. There is no need to submit the post multiple times.

Alternative specific contants in unlabelled form

Ask general questions about model specification and estimation that are not Apollo specific but relevant to Apollo users.
Post Reply
Peter_C
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 May 2020, 13:52

Alternative specific contants in unlabelled form

Post by Peter_C »

Dear Stephane and David,

I would like to ask you about alternative specific constants in unlabelled forms.

I saw some articles (e.g. Möser et al., 2019 in Journal of Choice Modeling) where the researcher estimated alternative specific constant value for two alternatives (they had 3 alternatives (A, B and opt-out), and they fixed the A alternative to zero and estimated the alternative speicific constant for B and opt-out).

However, I saw some articles and read that in unlabelled forms it is worth to estimate alternative specific constant values for only the choose (which contain A, B, C and other possibilities) and opt out options, one of which is kept at a fixed value (e.g. the choose option).

Which one is the best partice?

Thanks for your help!

Regards,
Peter
stephanehess
Site Admin
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Apr 2020, 16:29

Re: Alternative specific contants in unlabelled form

Post by stephanehess »

Peter

only differences in utility matter. If the ASCs are not random, then it makes no difference which ASC you normalise. The differences between them will remain the same

Stephane
--------------------------------
Stephane Hess
www.stephanehess.me.uk
Peter_C
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 May 2020, 13:52

Re: Alternative specific contants in unlabelled form

Post by Peter_C »

I understand that, it doesn't matter which asc I keep fixed.

So, among the following two forms, just the first is the correct?

form 1:

asc_alt1
asc_alt2
asc_optout

fixed (asc_alt1)

U1= asc_alt1 +....
U2= asc_alt2 +....
Uoptout= asc_optout


form 2:

asc
asc_optout

fixed (asc)

U1= asc +....
U2= asc +....
Uoptout= asc_optout


So we cannot gather (alternatives-1) asc-s into one asc in unlabelled form? Do we have to estimate (alternatives-1) asc-s in each case?
stephanehess
Site Admin
Posts: 974
Joined: 24 Apr 2020, 16:29

Re: Alternative specific contants in unlabelled form

Post by stephanehess »

Peter

whether the second is correct depends on what happens in your data. In theory, and this is a point that is misunderstood by many, you should always have a full set of ASCs. This is where the distinction that people make between "labelled" and "unlabelled" is not helpful. Random utility models are based on the assumption that the mean of the error terms is equal. This implies that any differences except for random noise between the alternatives are captured in the systematic part of utility. As it is almost never possible to do this, we estimate ASCs that capture the differences across alternatives in any factors that we have not captured through the systematic parts of utility, i.e. the explanatory variables. Of course, this is especially salient in so called "labelled" settings, but especially in stated choice (as opposed to real choice data), there are often effects of people reading from left to right or the design not being completely balanced, etc, etc.

So basically, my opinion is that analysts should always estimate a model with a full set of ASCs (of course with an appropriate normalisation). Then you can easily test whether there are differences in the ASCs. So in your case, specification 2 should only be used if in specification 1, there is no difference between the ASCs for the first two alternatives, i.e. if asc_alt2=0, given the constraint you have put in.

Hope this helps

Stephane
--------------------------------
Stephane Hess
www.stephanehess.me.uk
Peter_C
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 May 2020, 13:52

Re: Alternative specific contants in unlabelled form

Post by Peter_C »

Thank you Stephane!

You helped a lot!

Regards,
Peter
Post Reply