Issues in the specification of regret-only choice models: a rejoinder to Chorus and Van Cranenburgh

Soora Rasouli,Harry Timmermans

doi:10.1007/s11116-016-9740-4

Abstract

Before starting the debate, we would like to state explicitly that we share Chorus and Cranenburgh’s (CC although most MNL models assume a linear-additive utility function, there is no reason not to use non-linear (reference-based) functions, fading out their difference. These skeptics argue we do not need the concept of regret; the concept of utility is sufficient to formulate more flexible choice models. These reactions suggest a lot of confusion and lack of understanding of regret models. We have no desire to further contribute to this situation and therefore like to take this opportunity to further explain the considerations that led to our 2016 paper (Rasouli and Timmermans 2016) and articulate our opinions in response to C&C’s comments.

Highlights

Before starting the debate, we would like to state explicitly that we share Chorus and Cranenburgh’s (C&C) concerns about prevailing confusion about regret-based models and their fascination of exploring the value of context-dependent choice models in transportation research and beyond
The number of applications of random regret models has gradually increased over the last decade, still there are many nonbelievers as evidenced by critical, skeptical questions at conferences, questionable paper reviews and the contents of informal discussions
Some peers have questioned their theoretical foundation, as they are not based on classic axiomatic theorems of rational decision-making

Summary

Introduction

We would like to state explicitly that we share Chorus and Cranenburgh’s (C&C) concerns about prevailing confusion about regret-based models and their fascination of exploring the value of context-dependent choice models in transportation research and beyond. C&C claimed that our argument is incorrect and concluded that subtracting ln(2) from the value of the attribute regret function will solve the problem that RRM2010 gives non-zero regret even if the chosen alternative outperforms the other(s).4

Results

Conclusion