跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确将离散选择与其他偏好评价形式纳入联合分析模型,直接涉及个体偏好与选择建模。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Pablo Marshall
Eric T Bradlow

联合分析模型的统一方法

研究问题
如何在同一联合分析框架中结合自述偏好与完整产品方案评价,并判断不同评价尺度和数据来源带来的信息增益?
方法与思路
作者采用贝叶斯框架,以一种数据构造属性效用的先验,将评分、排序、离散选择或恒定总和评价作为似然数据。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称该框架涵盖多种既有模型,并给出多来源信息增益公式;汽车案例的样本外预测比较呈现混合结果。
阅读关注点
应核对不同评价尺度的似然构造、两类数据如何结合,以及校准与验证格式差异如何影响预测表现和信息增益。
阅读边界
仅据版本未注明的 OpenAlex 索引摘要;信息增益公式、先验条件与模拟设置未提供,不能推断该方法普遍改善预测。

原文摘要

We present a unified approach to conjoint analysis models using a Bayesian framework. One data source is used to form a prior distribution for the partworths, whereas full-profile evaluations under a rating scale, ranking, discrete choice, or constant-sum scale constitute the likelihood data (“one model fits all”). Standard existing models for conjoint analysis, considered in the literature, become particular cases of the proposed specification, and explicit formulas for the gains of using multiple sources of data are presented. We demonstrate our method on a conjoint analysis dataset containing both self-explicated evaluations and constant-sum profile data on new automobiles originally collected and described by Krieger, Green, and Umesh. Our empirical findings are “mixed” in that for some out-of-sample predictive measures our Bayesian approach is superior to using profile-only or self-explicated–only data, and for other measures it is not. Our findings suggest that the primary determinant as to whether self-explicated data add information above and beyond the profile data is the degree of incongruity between the calibration and validation data formats. Specifically, when the same type of data are collected for both sources, self-explicated data add less, and vice versa. A further contribution of our work (and one that is easily implemented, given the general nature of our approach) is that we take our data and fit constant sum, ranking, and binary choice models to it, allowing us to infer the “change” in information when taking data and transforming its scale (a common practice). A simulation study indicates the viability of this approach. A simple Gibbs sampler simulation scheme adapted to the form of the outcome measure, using data augmentation and Metropolis sampling, is considered for inference under the model.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文