Random Utility Models with Skewed Random Components: the Smallest versus Largest Extreme Value Distribution
Abstract: At the core of most random utility models (RUMs) is an individual agent with a random utility component following a largest extreme value Type I (LEVI) distribution. What if, instead, the random component follows its mirror image -- the smallest extreme value Type I (SEVI) distribution? Differences between these specifications, closely tied to the random component's skewness, can be quite profound. For the same preference parameters, the two RUMs, equivalent with only two choice alternatives, diverge progressively as the number of alternatives increases, resulting in substantially different estimates and predictions for key measures, such as elasticities and market shares. The LEVI model imposes the well-known independence-of-irrelevant-alternatives property, while SEVI does not. Instead, the SEVI choice probability for a particular option involves enumerating all subsets that contain this option. The SEVI model, though more complex to estimate, is shown to have computationally tractable closed-form choice probabilities. Much of the paper delves into explicating the properties of the SEVI model and exploring implications of the random component's skewness. Conceptually, the difference between the LEVI and SEVI models centers on whether information, known only to the agent, is more likely to increase or decrease the systematic utility parameterized using observed attributes. LEVI does the former; SEVI the latter. An immediate implication is that if choice is characterized by SEVI random components, then the observed choice is more likely to correspond to the systematic-utility-maximizing choice than if characterized by LEVI. Examining standard empirical examples from different applied areas, we find that the SEVI model outperforms the LEVI model, suggesting the relevance of its inclusion in applied researchers' toolkits.
- Falmagne and the rationalizability of stochastic choices in terms of random orderings. Econometrica, 54(3):707–715.
- Random orderings and stochastic theories of responses. In et al., I. O., editor, Contributions To Probability And Statistics. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
- A transactions choice model for forecasting demand for alternative-fuel vehicles. Research in Transportation Economics, 4:87–129.
- Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns. Journal of Econometrics, 89(1):109–129.
- Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
- Analysis of Economics Data. Amazon.com.
- Microeconometrics using Stata. Stata Press, College Station, Texas.
- Discrimination between alternative binary response models. Biometrika, 54(3):573–578.
- Cox, D. R. (1969). The Analysis of Binary Data. Chapman and Hall, London.
- Cramer, J. S. (2003). Logit Models from Economics and Other Fields. Cambridge University Press, New York.
- Croissant, Y. (2020). Estimation of random utility models in R: the mlogit package. Journal of Statistical Software, 95(11):1–41.
- Dagsvik, J. K. (2016). What independent random utility representations are equivalent to the IIA assumption? Theory and Decision, 80(3):495–499.
- Improved multiple choice models. In Henscher, D. and Dalvi, Q., editors, Identifying and Measuring the Determinants of Mode Choice. Teakfields, London.
- The generalized multinomial logit model: Accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Science, 29(3):393–421.
- Fowlie, M. (2010). Emissions trading, electricity restructuring, and investment in pollution abatement. American Economic Review, 100(3):837–69.
- Computationally intensive methods for integration in econometrics. In Heckman, J. J. and Leamer, E. E., editors, Handbook of Econometrics, volume 5, pages 3463–3568. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
- Greene, W. H. (2018). Econometric Analysis. Pearson, New York, 8th edition.
- Gumbel, E. J. (1958). Statistics of Extremes. Columbia University Press, New York.
- Specification test on mixed logit models. Journal of Econometrics, 219(1):19–37.
- The method of simulated scores for the estimation of LDV models. Econometrica, 66(4):863–896.
- Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica, 52(5):1219–1240.
- Social experimentation, truncated distributions, and efficient estimation. Econometrica, 45(4):919–938.
- Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
- Nonlinear income effects in random utility models. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(1):62–72.
- Horowitz, J. L. (1982). Specification tests for probabilistic choice models. Transportation Research Part A: General, 16(5-6):383–394.
- Hu, W. (2005). Logit models: smallest versus largest extreme value error distributions. Applied Economics Letters, 12(12):741–744.
- Jagelka, T. (2024). Are economists’ preferences psychologists’ personality traits? a structural approach. Journal of Political Economy, 132(3):910–970.
- A random-coefficients logit brand-choice model applied to panel data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 12(3):317–328.
- Personality differences and investment decision-making. Journal of Financial Economics, 153:103776.
- The solution and estimation of discrete choice dynamic programming models by simulation and interpolation: Monte Carlo evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(5):648–672.
- Knuth, D. (2011). The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 4A: Combinatorial Algorithms, Part 1. Pearson Education, Hoboken, NJ.
- A note on a recent paper by Dagsvik on IIA and random utilities. Theory and Decision, 82(2):305–307.
- Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual Choice Behavior: A Theoretical Analysis. Wiley.
- On the similarities between random regret minimization and mother logit: The case of recursive route choice models. Journal of Choice Modelling, 23(C):21–33.
- Manski, C. F. (1977). The structure of random utility models. Theory and Decision, 8(3):229–254.
- McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In Zarembka, P., editor, Frontiers in Econometrics, pages 105–142. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.
- McFadden, D. (1981). Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In Manski, C. F. and McFadden, D., editors, Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, pages 198–272. MIT Press.
- McFadden, D. (2001). Economic choices. American Economic Review, 91(3):351–378.
- Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5):447–470.
- An application of diagnostic tests for the irrelevant alternatives properties of the multinomial logit model. Transportation Research Record, 637:39–46.
- A dynamic multinomial probit model for brand choice with different long-run and short-run effects of marketing-mix variables. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(6):717–744.
- Ross, S. (2013). A First Course in Probability. Pearson.
- Ruud, P. A. (1986). Consistent estimation of limited dependent variable models despite misspecification of distribution. Journal of Econometrics, 32(1):157–187.
- Strzalecki, T. (2023). Stochastic Choice Theory. preprint, Department of Economics, Harvard University. https://scholar.harvard.edu/sites/scholar.harvard.edu/files/tomasz/files/scnotes94k.pdf.
- How McFadden met Rockafellar and learned to do more with less. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 100:102629.
- Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4):273–286.
- Train, K. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition.
- Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2):307–333.
- Williams, H. (1977). On the formulation of travel demand models and economic measures of user benefit. Environment & Planning A: Economy and Space, 9(3):285–344.
- Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. MIT Press, Cambridge and London.
- Yellott, J. I. (1977). The relationship between Luce’s choice axiom, Thurstone’s theory of comparative judgment, and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(2):109–144.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.