[Limdep Nlogit List] Variable choice sets

[Yijing Lu]

Yeah, I tried this method, and my code is

CLogit ;Lhs=CH,Nij
;Model:
U(*)=pa*x1+pb*x2+pc*x3+pd*x4+pf*x5+pg*x6+Ph*x7+pca*x8+pl*x9+pr*x10+pt*x11
  +k1*x12+k3*x13+k4*x14+<w1,w2,w3,w4,w5,w6,w7,w8,w9,0>Y
The x1,x2......x14 variables are alternative-specific variables, while the Y is
the generic variable.

It seemed to work and I got the results. Thank you.

YL

2010/6/19 Mikołaj Czajkowski <miq at wne.uw.edu.pl>

> On 2010-06-18 17:40, Yijing Lu wrote:
> > Dear Mikolaj Czajkowski,
> >
> > Thank you for your reply. In my model, there are attributes varying
> across
> > the choices and invariant variables across choices. Therefore, if I use
> > ;Rhs=, I will have to use the ;Rh2=. However, the difficulty for me is
> how
> > to specify the 'list' in the utility functions U(list)=, since the choice
> > sets are different for different people.
> >
>
> I fail to see the problem (and this probably means I didn't fully
> understand it) but why don't you simply specify a utility function in
> which you define all the attributes at once (e.g.
> U(*)=b0+b1*x1+b2*x2+b3*x3+....). If in some choice sets some of the
> attributes are missing they will simply take a value of 0 and hence will
> not influence the estimates of their parameters. E.g. if in one of the
> alternatives x2 and x3 were missing the utility function will become:
> U=b0+b1*x1+b2*0+b3*0+b4*x4+....=b0+b1*x1+b4*x4+....
> This is providing that you have generic (not alternative-specific)
> parameter estimates but you can easily work around it.
>
> Best regards,
>
>     Mikolaj Czajkowski
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>