在固定参数和随机参数潜类离散选择建模方法中,仅根据信息标准选择最佳类数是否足够?

IF 1.1 Q3 ECONOMICS
Péter Czine, Péter Balogh, Zsanett Blága, Zoltán Szabó, Réka Szekeres, Stephane Hess, Béla Juhász
{"title":"在固定参数和随机参数潜类离散选择建模方法中,仅根据信息标准选择最佳类数是否足够?","authors":"Péter Czine, Péter Balogh, Zsanett Blága, Zoltán Szabó, Réka Szekeres, Stephane Hess, Béla Juhász","doi":"10.3390/econometrics12030022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Heterogeneity in preferences can be addressed through various discrete choice modeling approaches. The random-parameter latent class (RLC) approach offers a desirable alternative for analysts due to its advantageous properties of separating classes with different preferences and capturing the remaining heterogeneity within classes by including random parameters. For latent class specifications, however, more empirical evidence on the optimal number of classes to consider is needed in order to develop a more objective set of criteria. To investigate this question, we tested cases with different class numbers (for both fixed- and random-parameter latent class modeling) by analyzing data from a discrete choice experiment conducted in 2021 (examined preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccines). We compared models using commonly used indicators such as the Bayesian information criterion, and we took into account, among others, a seemingly simple but often overlooked indicator such as the ratio of significant parameter estimates. Based on our results, it is not sufficient to decide on the optimal number of classes in the latent class modeling based on only information criteria. We considered aspects such as the ratio of significant parameter estimates (it may be interesting to examine this both between and within specifications to find out which model type and class number has the most balanced ratio); the validity of the coefficients obtained (focusing on whether the conclusions are consistent with our theoretical model); whether including random parameters is justified (finding a balance between the complexity of the model and its information content, i.e., to examine when (and to what extent) the introduction of within-class heterogeneity is relevant); and the distributions of MRS calculations (since they often function as a direct measure of preferences, it is necessary to test how consistent the distributions of specifications with different class numbers are (if they are highly, i.e., relatively stable in explaining consumer preferences, it is probably worth putting more emphasis on the aspects mentioned above when choosing a model)). The results of this research raise further questions that should be addressed by further model testing in the future.","PeriodicalId":11499,"journal":{"name":"Econometrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is It Sufficient to Select the Optimal Class Number Based Only on Information Criteria in Fixed- and Random-Parameter Latent Class Discrete Choice Modeling Approaches?\",\"authors\":\"Péter Czine, Péter Balogh, Zsanett Blága, Zoltán Szabó, Réka Szekeres, Stephane Hess, Béla Juhász\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/econometrics12030022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Heterogeneity in preferences can be addressed through various discrete choice modeling approaches. The random-parameter latent class (RLC) approach offers a desirable alternative for analysts due to its advantageous properties of separating classes with different preferences and capturing the remaining heterogeneity within classes by including random parameters. For latent class specifications, however, more empirical evidence on the optimal number of classes to consider is needed in order to develop a more objective set of criteria. To investigate this question, we tested cases with different class numbers (for both fixed- and random-parameter latent class modeling) by analyzing data from a discrete choice experiment conducted in 2021 (examined preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccines). We compared models using commonly used indicators such as the Bayesian information criterion, and we took into account, among others, a seemingly simple but often overlooked indicator such as the ratio of significant parameter estimates. Based on our results, it is not sufficient to decide on the optimal number of classes in the latent class modeling based on only information criteria. We considered aspects such as the ratio of significant parameter estimates (it may be interesting to examine this both between and within specifications to find out which model type and class number has the most balanced ratio); the validity of the coefficients obtained (focusing on whether the conclusions are consistent with our theoretical model); whether including random parameters is justified (finding a balance between the complexity of the model and its information content, i.e., to examine when (and to what extent) the introduction of within-class heterogeneity is relevant); and the distributions of MRS calculations (since they often function as a direct measure of preferences, it is necessary to test how consistent the distributions of specifications with different class numbers are (if they are highly, i.e., relatively stable in explaining consumer preferences, it is probably worth putting more emphasis on the aspects mentioned above when choosing a model)). The results of this research raise further questions that should be addressed by further model testing in the future.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11499,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Econometrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Econometrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics12030022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/econometrics12030022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

偏好的异质性可以通过各种离散选择建模方法来解决。随机参数潜类(RLC)方法为分析人员提供了一个理想的选择,因为它具有将具有不同偏好的类别分开,并通过包含随机参数来捕捉类别内剩余异质性的有利特性。然而,对于潜类规范,需要更多关于考虑的最佳类数的经验证据,以便制定一套更客观的标准。为了研究这个问题,我们通过分析 2021 年进行的离散选择实验数据(研究了 COVID-19 疫苗的偏好),测试了不同类数(固定参数和随机参数潜类模型)的情况。我们使用贝叶斯信息准则等常用指标对模型进行了比较,并考虑了一个看似简单但却经常被忽视的指标,即显著参数估计的比率。根据我们的研究结果,在潜类建模中仅根据信息标准来决定最佳类数是不够的。我们考虑的方面包括:重要参数估计的比率(在规格之间和规格内部研究这个比率可能会很有意义,以找出哪种模型类型和类数的比率最均衡);所得系数的有效性(重点关注结论是否与我们的理论模型一致);包含随机参数是否合理(在模型的复杂性和信息含量之间找到平衡点,即:在什么时候(以及在多大程度上)包含随机参数?检验何时(以及在多大程度上)引入类内异质性是相关的);以及 MRS 计算结果的分布(由于 MRS 通常是对偏好的直接衡量,因此有必要检验不同类数的规格分布的一致性如何(如果它们在解释消费者偏好方面高度,即相对稳定,那么在选择模型时可能值得更加重视上述方面))。本研究的结果提出了更多的问题,今后应通过进一步的模型检验来加以解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is It Sufficient to Select the Optimal Class Number Based Only on Information Criteria in Fixed- and Random-Parameter Latent Class Discrete Choice Modeling Approaches?
Heterogeneity in preferences can be addressed through various discrete choice modeling approaches. The random-parameter latent class (RLC) approach offers a desirable alternative for analysts due to its advantageous properties of separating classes with different preferences and capturing the remaining heterogeneity within classes by including random parameters. For latent class specifications, however, more empirical evidence on the optimal number of classes to consider is needed in order to develop a more objective set of criteria. To investigate this question, we tested cases with different class numbers (for both fixed- and random-parameter latent class modeling) by analyzing data from a discrete choice experiment conducted in 2021 (examined preferences regarding COVID-19 vaccines). We compared models using commonly used indicators such as the Bayesian information criterion, and we took into account, among others, a seemingly simple but often overlooked indicator such as the ratio of significant parameter estimates. Based on our results, it is not sufficient to decide on the optimal number of classes in the latent class modeling based on only information criteria. We considered aspects such as the ratio of significant parameter estimates (it may be interesting to examine this both between and within specifications to find out which model type and class number has the most balanced ratio); the validity of the coefficients obtained (focusing on whether the conclusions are consistent with our theoretical model); whether including random parameters is justified (finding a balance between the complexity of the model and its information content, i.e., to examine when (and to what extent) the introduction of within-class heterogeneity is relevant); and the distributions of MRS calculations (since they often function as a direct measure of preferences, it is necessary to test how consistent the distributions of specifications with different class numbers are (if they are highly, i.e., relatively stable in explaining consumer preferences, it is probably worth putting more emphasis on the aspects mentioned above when choosing a model)). The results of this research raise further questions that should be addressed by further model testing in the future.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Econometrics
Econometrics Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics and Econometrics
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信