Theory and Decision

, Volume 84, Issue 2, pp 239–275 | Cite as

A new mixed MNP model accommodating a variety of dependent non-normal coefficient distributions

  • Chandra R. Bhat
  • Patrícia S. Lavieri


In this paper, we propose a general copula approach to accommodate non-normal continuous mixing distributions in multinomial probit models. In particular, we specify a multivariate mixing distribution that allows different marginal continuous parametric distributions for different coefficients. A new hybrid estimation technique is proposed to estimate the model, which combines the advantageous features of each of the maximum simulated likelihood inference technique and Bhat’s maximum approximate composite marginal likelihood inference approach. The effectiveness of our formulation and inference approach is demonstrated through simulation exercises and an empirical application.


Copula Heterogeneity MACML Multinomial probit Choice modeling 



This research was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation through the Data-Supported Transportation Operations and Planning (D-STOP) Tier 1 University Transportation Center. The first author would like to acknowledge support from a Humboldt Research Award from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Germany. The authors are grateful to Lisa Macias for her help in formatting this document, and to two anonymous referees who provided useful comments on an earlier version of the paper.


  1. Amador, F. J., Gonzales, R., & Ortuzar, J. (2005). Preference heterogeneity and willingness to pay for travel time savings. Transportation, 32(6), 627–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azzalini, A. (2013). The Skew-normal and Related Families (Vol. 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balcombe, K., Chalak, A., & Fraser, I. M. (2009). Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 57(2), 226–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartels, R., Fiebig, D. G., & van Soest, A. (2006). Consumers and experts: An econometric analysis of the demand for water heaters. Empirical Economics, 31(2), 369–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bastin, F., Cirillo, C., & Toint, P. L. (2010). Estimating nonparametric random utility models with an application to the value of time in heterogeneous populations. Transportation Science, 44(4), 537–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, S. T., & Haile, P. A. (2014). Identification in differentiated products markets using market level data. Econometrica, 82(5), 1749–1797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhat, C. R. (1997). Work travel mode choice and number of non-work commute stops. Transportation Research Part B, 31(1), 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhat, C.R. (2004). Austin commuter survey: Findings and recommendations. Technical Report, Department of Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin.
  9. Bhat, C. R. (2011). The maximum approximate composite marginal likelihood (MACML) estimation of multinomial probit-based unordered response choice models. Transportation Research Part B, 45(7), 923–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bhat, C. R. (2014). The composite marginal likelihood (CML) inference approach with applications to discrete and mixed dependent variable models. Foundations and Trends in Econometrics, 7(1), 1–117. (Now Publishers Inc.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhat, C. R., & Eluru, N. (2009). A copula-based approach to accommodate residential self-selection effects in travel behavior modeling. Transportation Research Part B, 43(7), 749–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bhat, C. R., & Guo, J. Y. (2007). A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transportation Research Part B, 41(5), 506–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhat, C. R., & Sardesai, R. (2006). The impact of stop-making and travel time reliability on commute mode choice. Transportation Research Part B, 40(9), 709–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bhat, C. R., & Sidharthan, R. (2012). A new approach to specify and estimate non-normally mixed multinomial probit models. Transportation Research Part B, 46(7), 817–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bhat, C. R., Dubey, S. K., & Nagel, K. (2015). Introducing non-normality of latent psychological constructs in choice modeling with an application to bicyclist route choice. Transportation Research Part B, 78, 341–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bhat, C. R., Sener, I. N., & Eluru, N. (2010). A flexible spatially dependent discrete choice model: Formulation and application to teenagers’ weekday recreational activity participation. Transportation Research Part B, 44(8–9), 903–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Capitanio, A. (2010). On the approximation of the tail probability of the scalar skew-normal distribution. Metron, 68(3), 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cedilnik, A., Kosmelj, K., & Blejec, A. (2006). Ratio of two random variables: A note on the existence of its moments. Metodološki Zvezki—Advances in Methodology and Statistics, 3(1), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cirillo, C., & Axhausen, K. W. (2006). Evidence on the distribution of values of travel time savings from a six-week diary. Transportation Research Part A, 40(5), 444–457.Google Scholar
  20. Daly, A., Hess, S., & Train, K. (2011). Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models. Transportation, 39(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Godambe, V. P. (1960). An optimum property of regular maximum likelihood estimation. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 31(4), 1208–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ho, C., & Mulley, C. (2015). Intra-household interactions in tour-based mode choice: The role of social, temporal, spatial and resource constraints. Transport Policy, 38, 52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. il Kim, K. (2014). Identification of the distribution of random coefficients in static and dynamic discrete choice models. The Korean Economic Review, 30(2), 191–216.Google Scholar
  25. Joe, H. (2015). Dependence Modeling with Copulas. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  26. Kamakura, W. A., & Russell, G. (1989). A probabilistic choice model for market segmentation and elasticity structure. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (1965). Preference, utility, and subjective probability. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. H. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 249–410). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3(4), 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McFadden, D., & Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(5), 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mittelhammer, R. C., & Judge, G. (2011). A family of empirical likelihood functions and estimators for the binary response model. Journal of Econometrics, 164(2), 207–217.Google Scholar
  31. Nelsen, R. B. (2006). An Introduction to Copulas (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Ory, D. T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2005). When is getting there half the fun? Modeling the liking for travel. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2), 97–123.Google Scholar
  33. Paleti, R., & Bhat, C. R. (2013). The composite marginal likelihood (CML) estimation of panel ordered-response models. Journal of Choice Modelling, 7, 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paleti, R., Bhat, C., & Pendyala, R. (2013). Integrated model of residential location, work location, vehicle ownership, and commute tour characteristics. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2382, 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinjari, A., & Bhat, C. (2006). Nonlinearity of response to level-of-service variables in travel mode choice models. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1977, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Revelt, D., & Train, K. (1998). Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choices of appliance efficiency level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(4), 647–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sklar, A. (1959). Fonctions de répartition à n dimensions et leurs marges. Publications de l’Institut de Statistique de l’Université de Paris, 8, 229–231.Google Scholar
  38. Sklar, A. (1973). Random variables, joint distribution functions, and copulas. Kybernetika, 9(6), 449–460.Google Scholar
  39. Small, K. A. (2012). Valuation of travel time. Economics of Transportation, 1(1), 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Torres, C., Hanley, N., & Riera, A. (2011). How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(1), 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Train, K., & Sonnier, G. (2005). Mixed logit with bounded distributions of correlated partworths. In R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.), Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (Ch. 7, pp. 117–134). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Train, K., & Weeks, M. (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In R. Scarpa, A. Alberini (Eds.) Applications of simulation methods in environmental and resource economics (Ch. 1, pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Trivedi, P. K., & Zimmer, D. M. (2007). Copula modeling: An introduction for practitioners. Foundations and Trends in Econometrics, 1(1), 1–111. (Now Publishers Inc.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Varin, C., & Vidoni, P. (2005). A note on composite likelihood inference and model selection. Biometrika, 92(3), 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang, R. (2015). The stops made by commuters: Evidence from the 2009 US National Household Travel Survey. Journal of Transport Geography, 47, 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental EngineeringThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.The Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityKowloonHong Kong

Personalised recommendations