Introduction to Choice Modeling

  • Guillermo Gallego
  • Huseyin Topaloglu
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 279)


Revenue management models were originally developed under the assumption of stochastically independent demands. This assumption is untenable when products are close substitutes. In this case, the demand for a particular product may depend on the set of competing products that are available in the market. For example, when a product is removed from an assortment, its demand may be recaptured by another product in the assortment, or it may spill to competitors or the no-purchase alternative.


  1. S.D. Ahipasaoglu, X. Li, K. Natarajan, A convex optimization approach for computing correlated choice probabilities with many alternatives. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 64 (1), 190–205 (2019)Google Scholar
  2. A. Alptekinoglu, J.H. Semple, The exponomial choice model: a new alternative for assortment and price optimization. Oper. Res. 64 (1), 79–93 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. M. Ben-Akiva, S.R. Lerman, Discrete Choice Analysis Theory and Application to Travel Demand: Theory and Application to Travel Demand (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1985)Google Scholar
  4. G. Berbeglia, Discrete choice models based on random walks. Oper. Res. Lett. 44 (2), 234–237 (2016)Google Scholar
  5. G. Berbeglia, The generalized stochastic preference choice model. Technical report, Melbourne Business School, Melbourne, Australia (2018)Google Scholar
  6. G. Berbeglia, A. Garrassino, G. Vulcano, A comparative empirical study of discrete choice models in retail operations. Technical report, Universidad Torcuato di Tella, Buenos Aires, Argentina (2018)Google Scholar
  7. J. Blanchet, G. Gallego, V. Goyal, A Markov chain approximation to choice modeling. Oper. Res. 64 (4), 886–905 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. H.D. Block, Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses, in Economic Information, Decision, and Prediction (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1974), pp. 172–217Google Scholar
  9. A. Caplin, M. Dean, Revealed preference, rational inattention, and costly information acquisition. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA (2014)Google Scholar
  10. C. Daganzo, Multinomial Probit: The Theory and Its Application to Demand Forecasting (Academic, London, 1979)Google Scholar
  11. T.A. Domencich, D. McFadden, Urban Travel Demand : A Behavioral Analysis (North Holland Publishing, Amsterdam, 1975)Google Scholar
  12. V.F. Farias, S. Jagabathula, D. Shah, A non-parametric approach to modeling choice with limited data. Manag. Sci. 59 (2), 305–322 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. G. Feng, X. Li, Z. Wang, Technical note – on the relationship between several discrete choice models. Oper. Res. 65 (6), 1516–1525 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. G. Feng, X. Li, Z. Wang, On the substitutabiliy and complementarity in discrete choice models. Oper. Res. Lett. 46 (1), 141–146 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. G. Gallego, R. Wang, Reservation value choice models. Technical report, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (2019)Google Scholar
  16. G. Gallego, R. Ratliff, S. Shebalov, A general attraction model and sales-based linear program for network revenue management under consumer choice. Oper. Res. 63 (1), 212–232 (2015)Google Scholar
  17. F. Huettner, T. Boyaci, Y. Akcay, Consumer choice under limited attention when options have different information costs. Technical report, ESMT, Berlin (2018)Google Scholar
  18. W.T. Huh, H. Li, Technical note – pricing under the nested attraction model with a multi-stage choice structure. Oper. Res. 63 (4), 840–850 (2015)Google Scholar
  19. S. Jagabathula, P. Rusmevichientong, The limit of rationality in choice modeling: formulation, computation, and implications. Manag. Sci. 65(5), 2196–2215 (2019)Google Scholar
  20. S. Jagabathula, G. Vulcano, A partial-order-based model to estimation individual preferences using panel data. Manag. Sci. 64 (4), 1609–1628 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. S. Jagabathula, L. Subramanian, A. Venkataraman, A conditional gradient approach for nonparametric estimation of mixtures of choice models. Technical report, New York University, New York, NY (2018)Google Scholar
  22. A.G. Kok, M. Fisher, Demand estimation and assortment optimization under substitution: methodology and application. Oper. Res. 55 (6), 1001–1021 (2007)Google Scholar
  23. F.S. Koppelman, C.-H. Wen, The paired combinatorial logit model: properties, estimation and application. Transp. Res. B 34 (2), 75–89 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. T.L. Lai, H. Robbins, Maximally dependent random variables. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 73 (2), 286–288 (1976)Google Scholar
  25. R.D. Luce, Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis (Wiley, New York, 1959)Google Scholar
  26. R.D. Luce, The choice axiom after twenty years. J. Math. Psychol. 15 (3), 215–233 (1977)Google Scholar
  27. P. Manzini, M. Mariotti, Stochastic choice and consideration sets. Econometrica 82 (3), 1153–1176 (2014)Google Scholar
  28. V. Martinez-de-Albeniz, A. Saez-de-Tejada, Dynamic attraction models for cultural choice. Technical report, University of Navarra, Barcelona (2014)Google Scholar
  29. F. Matejka, A. McKay, Rational inattention to discrete choices: a new foundation for the multinomial logit model. Am. Econ. Rev. 105 (1), 272–298 (2015)Google Scholar
  30. D. McFadden, Modeling the choice of residential location, in Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models, ed. by A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickars, J. Weibull (Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1978), pp. 75–96Google Scholar
  31. D. McFadden, Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. J. Bus. 53 (3), 13–29 (1980)Google Scholar
  32. D. McFadden, K. Train, Mixed MNL models for discrete response. J. Appl. Econ. 15, 447–470 (2000)Google Scholar
  33. V.K. Mishra, K. Natarajan, H. Tao, C.-P. Teo, Choice prediction with semidefinite optimization when utilities are correlated. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 57 (10), 2450–2463 (2012)Google Scholar
  34. V.K. Mishra, K. Natarajan, D. Padmanabhan, C.-P. Teo, X. Li, On theoretical and empirical aspects of marginal distribution choice models. Manag. Sci. 60 (4), 1511–1531 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. K. Natarajan, M. Song, C.-P. Teo, Persistency model and its applications in choice modeling. Manag. Sci. 55 (3), 453–469 (2009)Google Scholar
  36. R. Phillips, A.S. Simsek, G.J. van Ryzin, The effectiveness of field price discretion: empirical evidence from auto lending. Manag. Sci. 61 (8), 1741–4759 (2015)Google Scholar
  37. R. Phillips, A.S. Simsek, G. van Ryzin, Estimating buyer willingness-to-pay and seller reserve prices from negotiation data and the implications for pricing. Technical report, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX (2016)Google Scholar
  38. A.S. Simsek, H. Topaloglu, Technical note – an expectation-maximization algorithm to estimate the parameters of the Markov chain choice model. Oper. Res. 66 (3), 748–760 (2018)Google Scholar
  39. K. Train, Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2002)Google Scholar
  40. G.J. van Ryzin, Models of demand. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 4 (2), 204–210 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. G. van Ryzin, G. Vulcano, A market discovery algorithm to estimate a general class of non-parametric choice models. Manag. Sci. 61 (2), 281–300 (2015)Google Scholar
  42. G. Vulcano, G.J. van Ryzin, Estimating primary demand for substitutable products from sales transaction data. Oper. Res. 60 (2), 313–334 (2012)Google Scholar
  43. R. Wang, Consumer choice and market expansion: modeling, optimization and implementation. Technical report, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD (2018a)Google Scholar
  44. C.-H. Wen, F.S. Koppelman, The generalized nested logit model. Transp. Res. B 35, 627–641 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guillermo Gallego
    • 1
  • Huseyin Topaloglu
    • 2
  1. 1.Clearwater BayHong Kong
  2. 2.ORIECornell UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations