Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

An analysis of machine learning approaches for enhancing decision-making in complex discrete choice tasks

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Flexible machine-learning models recover individual discrete-choice rules more accurately than parametric logistic models in simulated preference tasks.

desk verdict A genuinely useful benchmark grid undermined by a DGP misspecification: alpha in Eq. (1) is a left-bias multiplier, not a determinism parameter, so the determinism experiment doesn't test what it claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28854 v1 pith:4S3QB2KJ submitted 2026-07-30 cs.LG

Sheng Lun Christine Cao , Destenie Nock , Alex Davis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords discretechoicemodelingpreferenceelicitationmachinelearninggeneralizedadditivemodelGaussianprocessmultinomiallogitrulesMonteCarlosimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether machine-learning models can recover an individual's decision rule from a small number of two-alternative choices without assuming a linear utility form. Across simulations of five psychologically motivated choice rules, the authors find that flexible semi-parametric (generalized additive model) and non-parametric (Gaussian process) approaches generally predict held-out choices better than the parametric multinomial logit and twinned neural network models. Performance improves as training choice sets grow and as choices become more deterministic, but the best model depends on the choice rule. A real energy-policy preference dataset shows the twinned neural network fitting best, while multinomial logit overfits badly. The paper's central message is that model selection should follow the decision context, and that flexible models are a viable alternative to parametric defaults in preference elicitation.

What carries the argument

The engine is a controlled data-generating process for two-alternative forced choices. It computes a latent score difference for each of five choice rules — weighted utility differences for the strong-utility and ideal-point rules, a weighted valence difference with subjective log-mapping for the MLBA — and turns that difference into a binary left/right choice with the logistic P(L≻R)=α e^{Δ}/(1+α e^{Δ}); the lexicographic semiorder instead decides by thresholded comparisons of ranked attributes. Since the true rule is known in simulation, the performance of each learning model on held-out choices measures how well the model recovers the rule. The four compared learners — parametric multinom

What would settle it

Run the paper's own generator at α=0 and at equal utility: Eq. (1) gives P(L≻R)=0 and P=α/(1+α), respectively, so α is not a pure randomness dial. Re-running the determinism experiment with a centered logistic, such as P=σ(α Δu), and checking whether GAM and GP still beat MNL and TNN would settle whether the reported determinism improvements are artifacts of the equation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is a comparative benchmark: given two-alternative choices generated by any of five formal choice rules (linear strong utility, monotonic strong utility, ideal point, lexicographic semiorder, and multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator), the semi-parametric generalized additive model and non-parametric Gaussian process recover the underlying rule more accurately than the parametric multinomial logit or twinned neural network in most contexts. The authors also report regularities that hold across rules: increasing training choice sets improves model fit by roughly 6% to 96%, and increasing the determinism of the choice rule improves fit by 0% to 55%, with the ide

Load-bearing premise

The results rest on the claim that the logistic in Eqs. (1) and (8) correctly implements the strong-utility and MLBA rules with α as a pure determinism dial; as written α=0 yields P=0 rather than random 0.5, so the simulation may not generate choices from the intended random-to-deterministic spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Studies that use multinomial logit as a default for preference elicitation may be sacrificing accuracy; switching to a generalized additive model or Gaussian process can improve recovery of the underlying choice rule without requiring a correct parametric form in advance.
  • Sample size is a first-order lever: moving from 10 to 100 training choice sets reduced BIC by 48% to 96%, so preference-elicitation studies should budget for repeated choices per person whenever possible.
  • Choice consistency matters: as the simulated choice rule becomes more deterministic, model fit improves by up to 55%, so comparisons between studies should control for how consistently participants choose.
  • There is no universally best model; context should drive selection — GAM did best for linear strong utility and MLBA in the large-choice-set experiment, GP for ideal point and monotonic strong utility, and TNN for lexicographic semiorder.
  • In the real energy-policy case, TNN had the lowest BIC, while MNL overfit badly (null BIC in 642 of 822 respondents), suggesting parametric models need careful regularization on real small-sample data.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not tested in the paper: the determinism coefficient as written may distort findings, because α=0 gives P=0 rather than the intended random 0.5, and equal utilities give P=α/(1+α); a properly centered logistic could change the determinism-experiment rankings.
  • Not tested in the paper: the ideal-point rule's consistent difficulty suggests latent ideal values create weak utility gradients; active learning that queries choices near an estimated ideal point could be a testable remedy.
  • Not tested in the paper: since the winning model changes with context, a decision-support system could switch among GAM, Gaussian process, and TNN per respondent based on early response consistency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a Monte Carlo benchmark of four machine-learning models—multinomial logistic regression (MNL), generalized additive model (GAM), twinned neural network (TNN), and Gaussian process (GP)—for recovering five discrete choice rules (linear strong utility, monotonic strong utility, ideal point, lexicographic semiorder, multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator). Three simulation experiments vary the number of attributes, the number of training choice sets, and a 'determinism' coefficient α; performance is reported primarily via BIC, with additional metrics. A case study on real energy-policy preference data is included. The paper claims that semi- and non-parametric models generally outperform parametric models and that performance improves with more training choice sets and greater choice-rule determinism.

Significance. The research question is relevant to policy-oriented preference elicitation, where flexible models could reduce reliance on restrictive parametric assumptions. The paper's strengths include an open-source OSF repository, systematic coverage of five distinct choice rules, and the use of multiple accuracy metrics. However, the validity of the benchmark rests on the correctness of the data-generating process and on the BIC complexity penalty; both are problematic as detailed below. If corrected, the study could provide useful baseline evidence for model selection in discrete choice analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.1, Eq. (1); Sec. 3.2.3, Eq. (8); Sec. 4.2.1] The coefficient α is not a determinism parameter. Because P(L)=α e^{Δu}/(1+α e^{Δu}), the odds are P/(1−P)=α e^{Δu}; α multiplies the baseline odds of choosing Left, not the steepness of the sigmoid. At α=0 the formula gives P(L)=0 for every Δu, which is a deterministic choice of Right, not random choice; at α=10 and Δu=0, P(L)=10/11, a strong Left bias. The intended 'random to deterministic' manipulation in the determinism experiment is therefore confounded with a left-right bias. Since the large- and small-choice-set experiments fix α=10, the data-generating process is a biased logistic rather than the standard Fechnerian strong utility or MLBA rule. Consequently the reported BIC improvements with determinism (Tables 2–4, Figs. 8–9) and the abstract's '0% to 55%' claim are not supported by the experiments as run.
  2. [Sec. 3.5, Eq. (11)] The BIC is computed with k equal to the number of attributes for every model. This is not the number of estimated parameters: MNL has K coefficients, but GAM has smooth terms with effective degrees of freedom, TNN has thousands of weights, and GP has kernel hyperparameters plus nonparametric function estimates. Using the same k for all models removes the complexity penalty that BIC is designed to apply; the 'best model by BIC' comparisons in Figs. 4, 6, and 8 are therefore essentially likelihood rankings with a uniform penalty. The conclusion that flexible models outperform parametric models may be an artifact of this misspecified penalty. The authors should report model-specific k or use an alternative criterion (e.g., cross-validated log-likelihood, AIC with correct parameter count, or effective degrees of freedom).
  3. [Sec. 4.4, case study] The BIC is undefined for participants with predicted probabilities of 0 or 1, which the authors report for 642 of 822 participants under MNL. The paper does not state how these null/undefined BIC values were handled when computing the reported mean BIC values (e.g., 13.351 for TNN, 17.491 for MNL). If they were excluded, the comparison is biased toward models that happen not to produce extreme predictions; if they were counted as infinite, the mean is not finite. The case-study ranking is therefore uninterpretable without a stated treatment.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Numerous subject-verb agreement errors (e.g., 'four machine learning models was trained', 'attributes is') and other grammatical issues need a careful proofread.
  2. [Sec. 3.2.2, Eq. (5)] The indicator function only defines the choice when the m-th attribute difference exceeds ε; the random tie-breaking when no attribute difference exceeds the threshold is described in the text but not represented in the equation. Clarify the formal definition.
  3. [Table 1] The determinism experiment uses attribute levels U(0,2) whereas the other experiments use U(0,1). The text does not explain this change or its potential effect on utility differences.
  4. [Fig. 5 note] The figure caption/note mentions 'brier scores' in the shaded-region description, but the figure displays BIC. This appears to be a typo.
  5. [Sec. 5.1] The Limitations section properly acknowledges the absence of significance testing, but the paper still draws strong conclusions from point estimates with overlapping uncertainty bands. Reporting effect sizes with confidence intervals, or a formal significance test, would strengthen the claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity; central claims rest on independent Monte Carlo benchmarks and external data.

full rationale

This paper is an empirical benchmark, not a derivation. The five choice rules (linear/monotonic strong utility, ideal point, lexicographic semiorder, MLBA) are defined from external decision-science literature (Luce and Suppes, Coombs, Tversky, Trueblood et al.), and the four models (MNL, GAM, TNN, GP) are standard machine-learning methods with separate literatures. The core claims—e.g., GAM and GP generally outperform MNL and TNN—are not forced by construction because the data-generating classes and the estimated model classes differ across all four models, and no parameter is fitted to the target conclusions. The case study uses real survey data from Sergi et al. (2018), to which co-author Davis contributed, but that dataset is external empirical evidence, not a self-citation used to justify a derivation. The Limitations section candidly notes the lack of significance testing, metric disagreement, and very small per-person training sets; these are internal-validity limitations, not circularity. The determinism experiment's Eq. (1), P(L)=αe^{Δu}/(1+αe^{Δu}), appears to make α a baseline-odds shift rather than a sharpening temperature (α=0 forces the right alternative; α=10 yields P(L)=10/11 at equal utility), so the 'determinism' manipulation may be confounded; however, this is a soundness/correctness issue in the data-generating process, not a case where a prediction reduces to its input by construction. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior self-citation, and no ansatz is smuggled via self-citation. Therefore, no circular step meeting the stated evidentiary bar can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a set of hand-chosen generative parameters (alpha, beta, d, epsilon, lambda), an unspecified GP kernel, and two ad hoc modeling assumptions: the mis-specified logistic link and the attribute-count BIC penalty. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha (determinism coefficient) = 0-10, used as a multiplicative factor in Eq. (1)/(8)
    Chosen by hand as an experimental variable; as implemented it biases choice toward Left rather than controlling randomness.
  • beta_k attribute weights = drawn uniformly from [0,1] per trial
    Random hyperparameters in the data-generating process for strong utility and ideal point rules.
  • d_k ideal values = median attribute level
    Ideal point rule's ideal value is set to the median attribute level and treated as a constant (Section 3.2.1).
  • epsilon JND = 0.2
    Just Noticeable Difference for lexicographic semiorder, fixed by hand.
  • lambda (MLBA) = not reported
    Eq. (7) uses lambda to weight subjective differences, but no value is given in the main text.
  • GP covariance kernel K = not specified
    Eq. (10) uses a kernel K, but its functional form and hyperparameters are not given in the main text.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The logistic form in Eq. (1)/(8) with alpha as a multiplicative coefficient implements the intended choice rules, and alpha=0 corresponds to random choice.
    Section 3.2.1 and 4.2.1 rely on this; the equation actually gives P(L)=0 at alpha=0 and P(L)=10/11 at alpha=10 with equal utilities.
  • ad hoc to paper BIC with k equal to the number of attributes is a valid complexity penalty across MNL, GAM, TNN, and GP.
    Section 3.5 defines k this way; it ignores the different parameter counts of the models and is the basis for all reported BIC rankings.
  • domain assumption Uniform [0,1] attribute sampling and the five selected choice rules are representative of real preference-elicitation contexts.
    Sections 3.1 and 3.2; the conclusions are generalized to policy settings, but no evidence links the synthetic distributions to real choice sets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An analysis of machine learning approaches for enhancing decision-making in complex discrete choice tasks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4S3QB2KJ

@misc{pith2026260728854,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An analysis of machine learning approaches for enhancing decision-making in complex discrete choice tasks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4S3QB2KJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28854}
}
read the original abstract

Discrete choice modeling is a common tool used for preference elicitation during policy-making, but this is typically done through parametric models. Machine learning can push the boundaries of discrete choice modeling for policy-based preference elicitation by adopting a data-driven approach or learning individual preferences. However, there is limited knowledge of how well machine learning methods can estimate individual discrete choice rules under individual heterogeneity, especially in the context of challenges often experienced during preference elicitation. This study evaluates four machine learning models (multinomial logistic regression, generalized additive model, twinned neural network, and Gaussian process) with respect to their capacity to learn and predict five choice rules that are important in the behavioral and social sciences (linear strong utility, monotonic strong utility, ideal point, lexicographic semiorder, and multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator). Monte Carlo experiments were performed to assess model performance when increasing a) the number of attributes in the choice alternatives, b) the number of training choice sets, and c) the choice rule's determinism. The simulation results demonstrated that semi-parametric and non-parametric models generally outperform parametric models across all choice rules and experimental contexts. Model performance also generally improves by 6% to 96% and 0% to 55%, respectively, with an increase in training choice sets and choice rule determinism. A case study using real energy policy preference data was also conducted, where TNN performed best with a BIC of 13.351. This work demonstrated the viability and limitations of semi-parametric and non-parametric models in the context of policy-centric discrete choice modeling and showed how the choice task context should drive model selection.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bhat, G.Y

    F.A. Bhat, G.Y. Tiwari, A. Verma, Preferences for public electric vehicle charging infrastructure locations: A discrete choice analysis, Transp. Policy 149 (C) (2024) 177–197

    2024

  2. [2]

    Hwang, H

    I. Hwang, H. Son, Forecasting e-fuel vehicle demand using choice experiments within the stimulus-organism-response framework, Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 150 (2026) 105091, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2025.105091

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Y. Liu, Y. Li, K. Ye, X. Huang, Consumer preferences for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles adoption: A discrete choice survey, Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 146 (2025) 104892, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2025.104892

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    van der Kam, M

    M. van der Kam, M. Lagomarsino, B. Meuleman, U.J.J. Hahnel, D. Parra, A meta-analysis of discrete choice experiments on electric vehicle adoption (SSRN scholarly paper no. 4837984), Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. (2025) http://dx.doi.org/10. 2139/ssrn.4837984

    2025

  5. [5]

    Antonopoulos, T.L

    C.A. Antonopoulos, T.L. Fuentes, K.H. McCord, A.L.S. Rackley, S. Biswas, Re- gional assessment of household energy decision-making and technology adoption in the United States, Energy Policy 185 (C) (2024) https://ideas.repec.org//a/ eee/enepol/v185y2024ics0301421523005256.html

    2024

  6. [6]

    Nakai, V.von

    M. Nakai, V.von. Loessl, H. Wetzel, Preferences for dynamic electricity tariffs: A comparison of households in Germany and Japan, Ecol. Econom. 223 (2024) 108239, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108239

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    D. Uz, J. Mamkhezri, Household willingness to pay for various at- tributes of residential solar panels: Evidence from a discrete choice exper- iment, Energy Econ. 130 (C) (2024) https://ideas.repec.org//a/eee/eneeco/ v130y2024ics0140988323007752.html

    2024

  8. [8]

    Daniel McFadden, Kenneth Train, Mixed MNL models for discrete response, J. Appl. Econometrics (15) (2000) http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1099-1255(200009/ 10)15:5%3C447::AID-JAE570%3E3.0.CO;2-1

    work page doi:10.1002/1099-1255(200009/ 2000

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    Train, Mixed logit, in: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp

    K.E. Train, Mixed logit, in: Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 138–154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511753930.007

    2003

  2. [10]

    Helveston, logitr: Fast estimation of multinomial and mixed logit models with preference space and willingness-to-pay space utility parameterizations, J

    J.P. Helveston, logitr: Fast estimation of multinomial and mixed logit models with preference space and willingness-to-pay space utility parameterizations, J. Stat. Softw. 105 (2023) 1–37, http://dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v105.i10

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Train, Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, 2009

    K.E. Train, Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, Cambridge University Press, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Jagabathula, P

    S. Jagabathula, P. Rusmevichientong, The limit of rationality in choice modeling: Formulation, computation, and implications, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Davis, C

    A. Davis, C. De La Maza, 19-786: Stochastic discrete choice models, 2018

    2018

  6. [14]

    Tenenbaum, C

    J.B. Tenenbaum, C. Kemp, T.L. Griffiths, N.D. Goodman, How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction, Science 331 (6022) (2011) 1279–1285, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1192788

    2011 doi

  7. [15]

    Funk, Modeling Expert Choice At the Technical Frontier (Ph.D

    P. Funk, Modeling Expert Choice At the Technical Frontier (Ph.D. the- sis), Carnegie Mellon University, 2020, https://www.proquest.com/docview/ 2486194895/abstract/DE28D9A1FD074F51PQ/1

    2020

  8. [16]

    Bishop, Pattern recognition and machine learning, 2006, https://link.springer

    C. Bishop, Pattern recognition and machine learning, 2006, https://link.springer. com/book/9780387310732

    2006

  9. [17]

    De La Maza, A

    C. De La Maza, A. Davis, C. Gonzalez, I. Azevedo, A Graph-Based Model to Discover Preference Structure from Choice Data, 2018, p. 14

    2018

  10. [18]

    Sergi, A

    B. Sergi, A. Davis, I. Azevedo, The effect of providing climate and health information on support for alternative electricity portfolios, Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2) (2018) 024026, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9fab. 14 S.L. Cao, D. Nock and A. Davis Decision Analytics ...

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    Sergi, I

    B. Sergi, I. Azevedo, T. Xia, A. Davis, X. Jianhua, Support for emis- sions reductions based on immediate and long-term pollution exposure in China—ScienceDirect, Ecol. Econom. 158 (2019) 26–33

    2019

  12. [20]

    Berchi, G

    C. Berchi, G. Launoy, Principle, strengths and weaknesses of discrete choice modelling for eliciting public preferences for health care, Rev. Epidemiol Sante Publique 55 (2) (2007) 133–139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respe.2006.11.002

    2007 doi

  13. [21]

    Gillette, J

    C. Gillette, J. Ostermann, S. Garvick, C. Everett, D. Caviness, A.A. Aguilar, A discrete choice experiment with health professions trainees to improve the urban- rural health care access disparity in appalachia: Study protocol, PLoS One 20 (1) (2025) e0316521, http://dx.doi.or...

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Lagarde, D

    M. Lagarde, D. Blaauw, A review of the application and contribution of discrete choice experiments to inform human resources policy interventions, Hum. Resour. Health 7 (2009) 62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-7-62

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Nouwens, S.M

    S.P.H. Nouwens, S.M. Marceta, M. Bui, D.M.A.H. van Dijk, C.G.M. Groothuis- Oudshoorn, J. Veldwijk, J.A. van Til, E.W. de Bekker-Grob, The evolving landscape of discrete choice experiments in health economics: A systematic review, Pharmacoeconomics 43 (8) (2025) 879–936, http:/...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Mahpour, A

    A. Mahpour, A. Baghestani, A. Mamdoohi, An exploration of heterogeneity in latent psychological variables on travelers’ destination choice, Decis. Anal. J. 6 (2023) 100179, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100179

    2023

  17. [25]

    Püschel, L

    J. Püschel, L. Barthelmes, M. Kagerbauer, P. Vortisch, Comparison of discrete choice and machine learning models for simultaneous modeling of mobility tool ownership in agent-based travel demand models, Transp. Res. Rec. 2678 (7) (2024) 376–390, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03611...

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Vitins, A

    B. Vitins, A. Erath, Destination choice modeling with spatially distributed constraints, J. Transp. Land Use 16 (1) (2023) 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/ jtlu.2023.2226

    2023

  19. [27]

    Ahmed, M.G

    B.M. Ahmed, M.G. Fikru, Evaluating consumer preference and willingness to pay for low emission electricity: Evidence from a national choice experiment in the US, Energy Econ. 148 (2025) 108650, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2025. 108650

    2025 doi

  20. [28]

    Sergi, A

    B. Sergi, A. Davis, Public perceptions of energy tradeoffs in the United States, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CHPFG

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    Luce, The choice axiom after twenty years, J

    R.D. Luce, The choice axiom after twenty years, J. Math. Psych. 15 (3) (1977) 215–233, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90032-3

    1977 doi

  22. [30]

    R.D. Luce, P. Suppes, Preference, Utility, and Subjective Probability, 1965, p. 162

    1965

  23. [31]

    Marschak, Binary choice constraints on random utility indicators, 1959

    J. Marschak, Binary choice constraints on random utility indicators, 1959

    1959

  24. [32]

    1, 1986, pp

    Jean-Claude Falmagne, Psychophysical measurement and theory, in: Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, vol. 1, 1986, pp. 124–127

    1986

  25. [33]

    Coombs, On the use of inconsistency of preferences in psychological measurement, J

    C.H. Coombs, On the use of inconsistency of preferences in psychological measurement, J. Exp. Psychol. 55 (1958) 1–7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ h0044694

    1958

  26. [34]

    Tversky, Intransitivity of preferences, Psychol Rev 76 (1969) 31–48, http: //dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026750

    A. Tversky, Intransitivity of preferences, Psychol Rev 76 (1969) 31–48, http: //dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0026750

    1969 doi

  27. [35]

    Busemeyer, J.T

    J.R. Busemeyer, J.T. Townsend, Decision field theory: A dynamic-cognitive approach to decision making in an uncertain environment, Psychol Rev 100 (1993) 432–459, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.432

    1993 doi

  28. [36]

    Hancock, S

    T.O. Hancock, S. Hess, C.F. Choudhury, Decision field theory: Improvements to current methodology and comparisons with standard choice modelling tech- niques, Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 107 (2018) 18–40, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.trb.2017.11.004

    2018

  29. [37]

    Roe, J.R

    R.M. Roe, J.R. Busemeyer, J.T. Townsend, Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionst model of decision making, Psychol Rev 108 (2001) 370–392, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.370

    2001 doi

  30. [38]

    Evans, W.R

    N.J. Evans, W.R. Holmes, J.S. Trueblood, Response-time data provide critical constraints on dynamic models of multi-alternative, multi-attribute choice, Psy- chon. Bull. Rev. 26 (3) (2019) 901–933, http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018- 1557-z

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Evans, J.S

    N.J. Evans, J.S. Trueblood, W.R. Holmes, A parameter recovery assessment of time-variant models of decision-making, Behav. Res. Methods 52 (1) (2020) 193–206, http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01218-0

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Trueblood, S.D

    J.S. Trueblood, S.D. Brown, A. Heathcote, The multiattribute linear ballistic accumulator model of context effects in multialternative choice, Psychol Rev 121 (2) (2014) 179–205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036137

    2014 doi

  33. [41]

    Trueblood, A

    J.S. Trueblood, A. Heathcote, N.J. Evans, W.R. Holmes, Urgency, leakage, and the relative nature of information processing in decision-making, Psychol Rev 128 (1) (2021) 160–186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rev0000255

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Davis, 19-786: Foundations, 2021

    A. Davis, 19-786: Foundations, 2021

    2021

  35. [43]

    McFadden, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, Front

    D. McFadden, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior, Front. Econ. 10 (1973) 5–142

    1973

  36. [44]

    McFadden, Modelling the choice of residential location, 1977

    D. McFadden, Modelling the choice of residential location, 1977

    1977

  37. [45]

    Nishi, Y

    T. Nishi, Y. Hara, Discrete-choice model with generalized additive utility network, 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.16970, arXiv arXiv:2309. 16970

    2024 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Wood, Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, second ed., Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781315370279

    S.N. Wood, Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, second ed., Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781315370279

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Friedman, T

    J.H. Friedman, T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent, J. Stat. Softw. 33 (2010) 1–22, http: //dx.doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i01

    2010 doi

  40. [48]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, M. Wainwright, Statistical Learning with Sparsity: The Lasso and Generalizations, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2015, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1201/b18401

    2015

  41. [49]

    Bromley, I

    J. Bromley, I. Guyon, Y. LeCun, E. Säckinger, R. Shah, Signature verification using a siamese time delay neural network, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (1993) 6, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/1993/hash/ 288cc0ff022877bd3df94bc9360b9c5d-Abstract.html

    1993

  42. [50]

    Chicco, Siamese neural networks: An overview, in: H

    D. Chicco, Siamese neural networks: An overview, in: H. Cartwright (Ed.), Artificial Neural Networks, Springer US., 2021, pp. 73–94, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/978-1-0716-0826-5_3

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Chopra, R

    S. Chopra, R. Hadsell, Y. LeCun, Learning a similarity metric discriminatively, with application to face verification, in: 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 1, CVPR’05, 2005, pp. 539–546, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2005.202

    2005 doi

  44. [52]

    Arentze, H.J.P

    T.A. Arentze, H.J.P. Timmermans, A learning-based transportation oriented simulation system, Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 38 (7) (2004) 613–633

    2004

  45. [53]

    Arentze, H

    T. Arentze, H. Timmermans, Parametric action decision trees: Incorporating continuous attribute variables into rule-based models of discrete choice, Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 41 (7) (2007) 772–783

    2007

  46. [54]

    Brathwaite, A

    T. Brathwaite, A. Vij, J.L. Walker, Machine learning meets microeconomics: The case of decision trees and discrete choice, 2017, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.1711.04826, arXiv arXiv:1711.04826

    2017 doi arXiv

  47. [55]

    Chen, Estimating Discrete Choice Models with Random Forests, Springer, 2021

    N. Chen, Estimating Discrete Choice Models with Random Forests, Springer, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    N. Chen, G. Gallego, Z. Tang, The use of binary choice forests to model and estimate discrete choices, 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.01109, arXiv arXiv:1908.01109

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Meena, D

    K.K. Meena, D. Bairwa, A. Agarwal, A machine learning approach for unraveling the influence of air quality awareness on travel behavior, Decis. Anal. J. 11 (2024) 100459, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2024.100459

    2024

  50. [58]

    R. Dew, A. Ansari, Y. Li, Modeling dynamic heterogeneity using Gaussian processes, J. Mark. Res. 57 (1) (2020) 55–77, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0022243719874047

    2020

  51. [59]

    Houlsby, F

    N. Houlsby, F. Huszar, Z. Ghahramani, J. Hernández-lobato, Collaborative Gaussian processes for preference learning, Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. (2012) 25, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2012/hash/ afdec7005cc9f14302cd0474fd0f3c96-Abstract.html

    2012

  52. [60]

    Rasmussen, C.K.I

    C.E. Rasmussen, C.K.I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, MIT Press, 2006

    2006

  53. [61]

    I. Erev, E. Ert, O. Plonsky, D. Cohen, O. Cohen, From anomalies to forecasts: Toward a descriptive model of decisions under risk, under ambiguity, and from experience, Psychol Rev 124 (4) (2017) 369–409, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ rev0000062

    2017

  54. [62]

    Plonsky, I

    O. Plonsky, I. Erev, T. Hazan, M. Tennenholtz, Psychological forest: Predicting human behavior, Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 31 (1) (2017) 1, http://dx.doi. org/10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10613

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    Plonsky, R

    O. Plonsky, R. Apel, E. Ert, M. Tennenholtz, D. Bourgin, J.C. Peterson, D. Reichman, T.L. Griffiths, S.J. Russell, E.C. Carter, J.F. Cavanagh, I. Erev, Predicting human decisions with behavioral theories and machine learning, 2024, http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1904.06866, ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    Peterson, D.D

    J.C. Peterson, D.D. Bourgin, M. Agrawal, D. Reichman, T.L. Griffiths, Using large-scale experiments and machine learning to discover theories of human decision-making, Science 372 (6547) (2021) 1209–1214, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1126/science.abe2629

    2021

  57. [65]

    Morris, I.R

    T.P. Morris, I.R. White, M.J. Crowther, Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods, Stat. Med. 38 (11) (2019) 2074–2102, http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/sim.8086

    2019

  58. [66]

    Blavatskyy, Fechner’s strong utility model for choice among 𝑛 > 2 alternatives: risky lotteries, savage acts, and intertemporal payoffs, J

    P. Blavatskyy, Fechner’s strong utility model for choice among 𝑛 > 2 alternatives: risky lotteries, savage acts, and intertemporal payoffs, J. Math. Econom. 79 (2018) 75–82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2018.08.005

    2018 doi

  59. [67]

    McFadden, Measuring willingness-to-pay for transportation improvements, in: Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling, Elsevier, 1998, pp

    D. McFadden, Measuring willingness-to-pay for transportation improvements, in: Theoretical Foundations of Travel Choice Modeling, Elsevier, 1998, pp. 339–364, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043062-1/50016-6

    1998 doi

  60. [68]

    Ratcliff, G

    R. Ratcliff, G. McKoon, The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two- choice decision tasks, Neural Comput. 20 (4) (2008) 873–922, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420

    2008 doi

  61. [69]

    Davis, 19-786: Fast introduction, 2021

    A. Davis, 19-786: Fast introduction, 2021

    2021

  62. [70]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, Generalized additive models: Some applications, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 82 (398) (1987) 371–386, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459. 1987.10478440. 15 S.L. Cao, D. Nock and A. Davis Decision Analytics Journal 18 (2026) 100668

    1987

  63. [71]

    S.J. Rao, Y. Wang, G.W. Cottrell, A deep siamese neural network learns the human- perceived similarity structure of facial expressions without explicit categories, in: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2016, p. 38

    2016

  64. [72]

    Retrieved November 30 2022, from https://autonomio.github

    Talos, Talos Docs. Retrieved November 30 2022, from https://autonomio.github. io/talos/#/

    2022

  65. [73]

    Schwarz, Estimating the dimension of a model, Ann

    G. Schwarz, Estimating the dimension of a model, Ann. Statist. 6 (2) (1978) 461–464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136

    1978

  66. [74]

    Stoica, Y

    P. Stoica, Y. Selen, Model-order selection: A review of information criterion rules, IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 21 (4) (2004) 36–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MSP. 2004.1311138

    2004 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Umutoni, V

    L. Umutoni, V. Samadi, Application of machine learning approaches in supporting irrigation decision making: A review, Agricult. Water. Manag. 294 (2024) 108710, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108710

    2024

  68. [76]

    Athey, G.W

    S. Athey, G.W. Imbens, Discrete choice models with multiple unobserved choice characteristics*, Internat. Econom. Rev. 48 (4) (2007) 1159–1192, http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-2354.2007.00458.x

    2007

  69. [77]

    Mperejekumana, H

    P. Mperejekumana, H. Li, R. Wu, J. Lu, O. Tursunov, H. Elshareef, M.S. Gaballah, N.J. Nepo, Y. Zhou, R. Dong, Determinants of household energy choice for cook- ing in northern Sudan: A multinomial logit estimation, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18 (21) (2021) 11480, http...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.