Comparing discrete choice and machine learning models in predicting destination choice
-
Published:2024-08-21
Issue:1
Volume:16
Page:
-
ISSN:1866-8887
-
Container-title:European Transport Research Review
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Eur. Transp. Res. Rev.
Author:
Rahnasto IlonaORCID, Hollestelle Martijn
Abstract
AbstractDestination choice modeling has long been dominated by theory-based discrete choice models. Simultaneously, machine learning has demonstrated improved predictive performance to other fields of discrete choice modeling. The objective of this research was to compare machine learning models and a multinomial logit model in predicting destination choice. The models were assessed on their predictive performance using metrics for both binary classification and probabilistic classification. The results indicate that machine learning models, especially a random forest model, could bring improvements in prediction accuracy. The more data was used in training the models, the better the machine learning models tended to perform compared to the multinomial logit model. With less data, the multinomial logit model performed comparatively well. The findings are relevant for the field of destination choice modeling, where evidence on the use of machine learning models is very limited. In addition, the unbalanced choice sets of destination choice models with multiple non-chosen alternatives increases the need for further research in model fit and parameter tuning.
Funder
European Conference of Transport Research Institutes
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference29 articles.
1. Ben-Akiva, M., & Lerman, S. R. (1985). Discrete choice analysis: Theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press. 2. Brier, G. W. (1950). Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly Weather Review, 78(1), 1–3. 3. Cheng, L., Chen, X., De Vos, J., Lai, X., & Witlox, F. (2019). Applying a random forest method approach to model travel mode choice behavior. Travel Behaviour and Society, 14, 1–10. 4. Dormann, C. F., Elith, J., Bacher, S., Buchmann, C., Carl, G., Carré, G., Marquéz, J. R. G., Gruber, B., Lafourcade, B., Leitão, P. J., Münkemüller, T., McClean, C., Osborne, P. E., Reineking, B., Schröder, B., Skidmore, A. K., Zurell, D., & Lautenbach, S. (2013). Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography, 36(1), 27–46. 5. Elolähde, T., Räty, P., & West, J. (2019). Helsingin seudun työssäkäyntialueen liikenne-ennustejärjestelmän kysyntämallit 2017. Technical report, HSL Helsingin seudun liikenne.
|
|