Scenario prediction with apollo_prediction and respondent-specific BAU: shares vs max(p) vs simulation
Posted: 26 Mar 2026, 18:31
Hello Apollo team,
I am estimating labelled mixed logit models in Apollo on household biowaste management. Each choice set includes a respondent-specific
business as usual (BAU) / status quo alternative: “I prefer to keep my current practice.”
My goal is to predict behaviour under policy scenarios, and also to derive the expected number of households participating in each option.
My question concerns post-estimation prediction and, more specifically, how to handle the BAU alternative when reporting scenario results and when comparing predictions with observed real-world behaviour.
If I want an individual-level predicted behaviour, should I use:
- the maximum probability rule (max(p)), i.e. assign each individual to the alternative with the highest predicted probability,
- or simulated choice draw from the predicted probabilities?
How should I handle the BAU alternative?
Because BAU is respondent-specific (“keep my current practice”), it is not a unique concrete behaviour category.
In my case, respondents’ current practices may overlap with the labelled alternatives used in the experiment (for example: individual composting, curbside collection, recycling centre), rather than representing a separate behavioural category.
Would it therefore be methodologically acceptable to:
- first report predictions in the original choice space (Alternative 1 / Alternative 2 / Alternative 3 / BAU),
- and then recode BAU into the respondent’s actual current behaviour when comparing predicted versus observed real-world practices?
This seems necessary to me for external validation, and behavioural prediction because otherwise BAU remains an abstract choice category rather than an observable behaviour.
My objective is not only to predict choices within the experimental setting, but to approximate future household behaviour under policy scenarios. In particular, for my PhD research, these predictions will feed into a broader framework assessing the feasibility of alternative biowaste treatment chains. I fully understand the limitations of stated preference data, so I interpret these results as ex ante behavioural projections, not exact forecasts.
Any guidance on recommended practice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much.
I am estimating labelled mixed logit models in Apollo on household biowaste management. Each choice set includes a respondent-specific
business as usual (BAU) / status quo alternative: “I prefer to keep my current practice.”
My goal is to predict behaviour under policy scenarios, and also to derive the expected number of households participating in each option.
My question concerns post-estimation prediction and, more specifically, how to handle the BAU alternative when reporting scenario results and when comparing predictions with observed real-world behaviour.
If I want an individual-level predicted behaviour, should I use:
- the maximum probability rule (max(p)), i.e. assign each individual to the alternative with the highest predicted probability,
- or simulated choice draw from the predicted probabilities?
How should I handle the BAU alternative?
Because BAU is respondent-specific (“keep my current practice”), it is not a unique concrete behaviour category.
In my case, respondents’ current practices may overlap with the labelled alternatives used in the experiment (for example: individual composting, curbside collection, recycling centre), rather than representing a separate behavioural category.
Would it therefore be methodologically acceptable to:
- first report predictions in the original choice space (Alternative 1 / Alternative 2 / Alternative 3 / BAU),
- and then recode BAU into the respondent’s actual current behaviour when comparing predicted versus observed real-world practices?
This seems necessary to me for external validation, and behavioural prediction because otherwise BAU remains an abstract choice category rather than an observable behaviour.
My objective is not only to predict choices within the experimental setting, but to approximate future household behaviour under policy scenarios. In particular, for my PhD research, these predictions will feed into a broader framework assessing the feasibility of alternative biowaste treatment chains. I fully understand the limitations of stated preference data, so I interpret these results as ex ante behavioural projections, not exact forecasts.
Any guidance on recommended practice would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you very much.