From brett.smith at uwa.edu.au Mon Dec 2 12:12:26 2019
From: brett.smith at uwa.edu.au (Brett Smith)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 01:12:26 +0000
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] manuals
Message-ID:
Hi all,
I recently moved offices and decided to discard my old hardcopy manuals thinking I could obtain newer online pdf's. However, despite visiting the website a couple of times I cannot find the appropriate link. Can anyone send the link to pdf version of LimDep manuals?
Thank you in advance
Brett
Brett Smith | PhD
Department of Management & Organisations
Director of Masters of Business Information and Logistics Management
Research Fellow, Centre for Business Analytics
Research Associate, Planning and Transport Research Center (PATREC)
UWA Business School | M261, Perth WA 6009 Australia
T +61 8 6488 3979 | E Brett.Smith at uwa.edu.au
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Mon Dec 2 23:14:30 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 07:14:30 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] manuals
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Brett. There is a copy of the manual on your computer in the
C:\LIMDEP11\Documentation folder.
/Bill Greene
On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 8:12 PM Brett Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recently moved offices and decided to discard my old hardcopy manuals
> thinking I could obtain newer online pdf's. However, despite visiting the
> website a couple of times I cannot find the appropriate link. Can anyone
> send the link to pdf version of LimDep manuals?
>
> Thank you in advance
>
> Brett
>
> Brett Smith | PhD
> Department of Management & Organisations
> Director of Masters of Business Information and Logistics Management
> Research Fellow, Centre for Business Analytics
> Research Associate, Planning and Transport Research Center (PATREC)
> UWA Business School | M261, Perth WA 6009 Australia
> T +61 8 6488 3979 | E Brett.Smith at uwa.edu.au >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/oEvxCANZvPik9kpYSGjArL?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From cvmh.kiel at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 06:59:20 2019
From: cvmh.kiel at gmail.com (Cordula H)
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 20:59:20 +0100
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Cluster-robust standard errors
(panel-adjusted) for conditional logit model in Nlogit?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Dear Professor Greene,
Thank you for your reply!
I have tried this as you suggested, but unfortunately it did not change
anything in the results.
I use NLOGIT 5, not 6, if this is relevant.
Kind regards
Cordula
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 8:36 PM William Greene via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> Cordula. Assuming you are using version 6.0 of NLOGIT, the appropriate
> spec.
> is ;Cluster = number of choice tasks. For you, that would be ;Cluster = 8.
> Regards,
> Bill Greene
>
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 6:44 AM Cordula H via Limdep <
> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> >
> > I am new to this list and also new to Nlogit. ?
> >
> > I have some basic experience with choice analysis, but I have only used
> > Stata so far.
> > Now I am supposed to use Nlogit and I have some issues figuring out the
> > right commands, although I have tried to find answers in the Nlogit
> > documentation.
> >
> >
> > I have conducted a pilot study of the choice experiment to get estimates
> > that I can use as priors for input into Ngene to generate an efficient
> > design. Each of the respondents got 8 choice sets out of a blocked 3x8
> > design. Each choice tasks consists of three alternatives.
> >
> > Now I tried to estimate a conditional logit model.
> >
> >
> > First, I used Stata. I estimated the model with cluster-robust standard
> > errors, because I thought that it makes sense to account for the panel
> > data, so that it is recognized that one respondent is associated with
> > several observations.
> >
> > However, I could not figure out yet how to do this in Nlogit. I
> estimated a
> > conditional logit model, which provides the same results as the basic
> > conditional logit model in Stata, without accounting for the panel data /
> > cluster-robust standard errors. I found some commands like "cluster" or
> > "robust" for Nlogit, but somehow this does not really seem to work.
> > Probably I am not using these commands correctly. (For instance, I tried
> > "cluster = ID", with ID being the individual ID of each respondent. The
> > results are different than the results of the basic model, but not the
> same
> > as in the Stata version, and in the output the number of respondents does
> > not seem to be recognized.
> >
> >
> > Could anybody please help me in this regard?
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot in advance!
> > _______________________________________________
> > Limdep site list
> > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> >
>
>
> --
> William Greene
> Department of Economics, emeritus
> Stern School of Business, New York University
> 44 West 4 St.
> New York, NY, 10012
> URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/HIssC71ZgLtDZgvri8QCMq?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
> Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
> Ph. +1.646.596.3296
> Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
> Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
> Associate Editor: Economics Letters
> Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Fri Dec 6 05:33:13 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:33:13 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] simulation of ordered logit probabilities
after inclusion of random parameters
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Derek. This command does not fit a random parameters model. In order to
fit an RPM you
must include the specification of which parameters are random and what the
distributions are.
Although the command did not work to fit an RPM, the presence of the ;RPM
switch in the
command turns off the saving of the results for the subsequent PARTIALS and
SIMULATE
commands, which partly explains the diagnostic about SIMULATE. Before we
turn to that,
it looks like the ;RST specification specifies far more parameters than
there are in the model.
Finally, it is unclear with the RTM (random thresholds) model is doing in
here.
I could not figure out what is going on with ;RST.
The SIMULATE command is not set up to work with a random parameters
model. What you
can do to get the mean estimates of simulation or partial is, after fitting
this model, use the
betas and mus as starting values in an ordinary ORDERED command and include
;MAXIT=0.
This will store the model in a way that can be used with PARTIALS and
SIMULATE.
/Bill Greene
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 8:07 AM Derek Monsuur wrote:
> Dear sir/madam,
> I have a question with regards to the simulation of probabilities after
> estimating an ordered logit model with random parameters. After estimation,
> I like to simulate probabilities for several scenario's, in which the
> parameter 'MIN' is varied over several levels, e.g. from 0 to 80. The model
> looks like this:
> ORDERED;
> LHS=SAT;
> RHS = one, FEM, FREQ, MIN, STAND, INFO, IC, BCANCEL, CANCEL, AGE1, AGE3,
> MG3, COMB, PERB, LEI, COMN, RED;
>
> RST=b1,b2,b3,b4,b5,b6,b7,b8,b9,b10,b11,b12,b13,b14,b15,b16,b17,b18,b19,b20,b21,b22,b23,0,0,0,b27,0,b29,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0;
> RTM;
> RPM;
> halton;pts=20;
> alg=bfgs;
> logit;partials$
> And after model estimation I use the following command:
> Simulation;Scenario:&MIN=0(5)80;Outcome=*$
> This command works perfectly fine with a basic ordered logit model,
> however, when I use this command after estimating the model with random
> thresholds and random parameters (for 'MIN' and 'INFO'), I get the
> following error message:
> "Previous model did not store model setup for PARTIALS.
> Check model setup and output for errors. Setup does
> not occur if model command contains Expand(variable)."
> To me it seems that I somehow need to store the individual specific
> parameter means, and according to the manual this can be done with the
> command ;Parameters. If I include this command however, NLOGIT crashes
> immediately, without giving me the opportunity to inspect the error
> message. Or is it the case that this functionality is simply not available
> for ordered logit with random parameters?
> With kind regards,
> Derek Monsuur
>
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/jfzrCyoNVrcxE61mSZPODq?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Fri Dec 6 09:30:21 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 17:30:21 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] About Heteroskedastic Ordered Probit
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
David. I believe all you have to do with this command is change ;RH2 to
;HFN in the
second command.
Regards
Bill Greene
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:28 PM DAVID BOTO GARCIA
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am using LIMDEP 11 and I am trying to estimate a Heteroskedastic Ordered
> Probit, where both the mean and the variance (multiplicative) are modelled
> as a function of covariates. I used the commands proposed in the
> Econometric Modelling Guide. However, when I run the model LIMDEP estimates
> only the Homoskedastic Model. I am not able to estimate the heteroskedastic
> version even through I specifically asked for it. I wonder whether my code
> is wrong or there might be another problem.
>
> namelist;
> x=hom,age,tracp,est,ama,par,jub,ext,res,vac,trab,alone,pare,los,first,cy,orcos,
>
> orint,nuacom,mcal,mcon,mexp,mgus,mrec,msit,mtran,mcer,mpre,aldes,mpen,pcom,gasto,s3,s4,s5,
> t3,y06,y07,y08,y09,y10,y11,y12,y13,y14,y15,y16;
> z=age,hom,first,pcom,cy,orcos,orint,s3,s4,s5,mcon,mgus,msit,mpre $
>
> ?BASELINE ORDERED MODEL
> ORDERED ; Lhs = y ; Rhs = one,x $
>
> ?HETEROSKEDASTIC ORDERED MODEL
> ORDERED ; Lhs = y ; Rhs = x; Heteroscedastic;
> Rh2=age,hom,first,pcom,cy,orcos,orint,s3,s4,s5,mcon,mgus,msit,mpre$
>
> Regards,
> David
>
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/QhovC6X13Rt5xLykSpHxtH?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From ashu.kedia at pg.canterbury.ac.nz Tue Dec 10 11:08:22 2019
From: ashu.kedia at pg.canterbury.ac.nz (Ashu Kedia)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 00:08:22 +0000
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Request to help with estimating marginal
effects
In-Reply-To: <016F0B45C2610A44B0B3F76A466532E0011CE2F8@UCEXMBX03-I.canterbury.ac.nz>
References: <016F0B45C2610A44B0B3F76A466532E0011CE2F8@UCEXMBX03-I.canterbury.ac.nz>
Message-ID: <016F0B45C2610A44B0B3F76A466532E0011CE38A@UCEXMBX03-I.canterbury.ac.nz>
Hi Professor William Greene,
I hope you are doing well.
I am Ashu Kedia, a PhD student in transportation engineering at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
I am having a few doubts regarding marginal effects calculation. It will be a great help if you could clarify my doubts.
1. I am using Nlogit 5 version to carry out estimations, but have been following the Hensher et al. (2005) book to understand the process, which might have used Nlogit 3 version.
The book says (on pg. 398 and 399) that the Marginal effects as reported are ?true marginal effects multiplied by 100?. So, we need to divide the reported values by 100 to obtain the true marginal effect value. Now, I presume that this is applicable to that particular version of the software (i.e. Nlogit 3 or 4).
However, I am using Nlogit 5 version, and it is not clear to me whether the above convention is applicable to the marginal effects results given by the Nlogit 5 version as well?
I am asking this because the marginal effects obtained in my study are already very small in magnitude. For example: they vary between 0.08 and 1.06. If I divide such small values by 100, it will be exceptionally small.
Is this not uncommon?
Could you please advise on this?
2. The examples of marginal effects calculations given in the book, Hensher et al. (2005), are for the MNL model specification. Do the syntax remains the same if marginal effects are calculated for a mixed logit model?
3. Hensher et al. (2005) book has shown two different methods to calculate marginal effects for continuous-level data and categorically coded data.
Details of attributes and levels adopted in my study are as follows:
Alternatives: 2
Attributes: continuous (e.g. cost, time, etc.) ? 4 attributes with 3 levels in each; categorical (i.e. qualitative attributes; e.g. type of a facility, such as residential or commercial) ? 3 attributes with 2 levels in each.
Model type: Mixed logit model with heterogeneity in mean
Marginal effect estimation method: ;Pwt (probability weighted average)
Question : I have estimated the marginal effects of the continuous level attributes, using the method given on page no. 397 (but applying changes to the syntax that are required to estimate a mixed logit model).
To estimate the marginal effects for the categorically coded variables, the book shows the ?Simulation? method to be used.
However, when we use these two different methods separately to estimate marginal effects (i.e. once for continuous variables and then for categorical variables), two sets of coefficient values (i.e. parameter estimates for the model) are obtained. But we need only one set of coefficients for the estimated model. Which one of those two sets of estimates are to be adopted for the final reporting?
It will be a great help if you clarify these questions. I am happy to provide more details, if needed.
Kind regards
Ashu
Ashu Kedia
PhD Student,
Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140
New Zealand
________________________________
From: Ashu Kedia
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 12:57 PM
To: limdep at limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
Subject: Request to help with estimating marginal effects
Hi Professor William Greene,
I hope you are doing well.
I am Ashu Kedia, a PhD student in transportation engineering at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
I am having a few doubts regarding marginal effects calculation. It will be a great help if you could clarify my doubts.
1. I am using Nlogit 5 version to carry out estimations, but have been following the Hensher et al. (2005) book to understand the process, which might have used Nlogit 3 version.
The book says (on pg. 398 and 399) that the Marginal effects as reported are ?true marginal effects multiplied by 100?. So, we need to divide the reported values by 100 to obtain the true marginal effect value. Now, I presume that this is applicable to that particular version of the software (i.e. Nlogit 3 or 4).
However, I am using Nlogit 5 version, and it is not clear to me whether the above convention is applicable to the marginal effects results given by the Nlogit 5 version as well?
I am asking this because the marginal effects obtained in my study are already very small in magnitude. For example: they vary between 0.08 and 1.06. If I divide such small values by 100, it will be exceptionally small.
Is this not uncommon?
Could you please advise on this?
2. The examples of marginal effects calculations given in the book, Hensher et al. (2005), are for the MNL model specification. Do the syntax remains the same if marginal effects are calculated for a mixed logit model?
3. Hensher et al. (2005) book has shown two different methods to calculate marginal effects for continuous-level data and categorically coded data.
Details of attributes and levels adopted in my study are as follows:
Alternatives: 2
Attributes: continuous (e.g. cost, time, etc.) ? 4 attributes with 3 levels in each; categorical (i.e. qualitative attributes; e.g. type of a facility, such as residential or commercial) ? 3 attributes with 2 levels in each.
Model type: Mixed logit model with heterogeneity in mean
Marginal effect estimation method: ;Pwt (probability weighted average)
Question : I have estimated the marginal effects of the continuous level attributes, using the method given on page no. 397 (but applying changes to the syntax that are required to estimate a mixed logit model).
To estimate the marginal effects for the categorically coded variables, the book shows the ?Simulation? method to be used.
However, when we use these two different methods separately to estimate marginal effects (i.e. once for continuous variables and then for categorical variables), two sets of coefficient values (i.e. parameter estimates for the model) are obtained. But we need only one set of coefficients for the estimated model. Which one of those two sets of estimates are to be adopted for the final reporting?
It will be a great help if you clarify these questions. I am happy to provide more details, if needed.
Kind regards
Ashu
From doctorjasonong at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 16:41:05 2019
From: doctorjasonong at gmail.com (Jason Ong)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 16:41:05 +1100
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Error 1097: Unusable LHS variable in choice
model setup
Message-ID:
I am doing a preliminary analysis on a DCE and am trying to run a MNL model
using NLOGIT 6
But I came across this error - "Error 1097: Unusable LHS variable in
choice model setup"
I am not sure what I am doing wrong with my code (data set also attached as
*.csv file)
NLOGIT
; Lhs = ChoiceV, cset, altij
; Choices = A,B,C
; Model:
U(A,B)=prep1*prep1+prep2*prep2+condom*condom+sex1*sex1+sex2*sex2+test1*test1+test2*test2+pep*pep/
U(C)=neither
$
thanks for your help.
*Jason Ong*
From gk3saini at uwaterloo.ca Tue Dec 10 17:42:39 2019
From: gk3saini at uwaterloo.ca (Gursimran Kaur Saini)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 06:42:39 +0000
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] (no subject)
Message-ID: <9FA880AA-ADA3-44B0-AABE-FAABE575A4C6@uwaterloo.ca>
Hello,
I am trying to develop a mode choice model using a nested Logit model using NLOGIT 6.
I am running into the following errors:
- I am unable to load my data file onto NLOGIT (with about 250,000 observations), when I create another file with a part of the data, I was able to import it, but not the complete file.
- Number of choices not equal to the number of alternatives?
I?m not sure what I am doing wrong.
Here?s the code I am using
Nlogit
;Lhs=CHOICE
;Choices=CarD,CarP,Bus,Walk,Bike,MSM
;Tree=Trips{Private[Car(CarD,CarP),MSM],Public[Bus],NMT[Walk,Bike]}
;ias=Carp
;Show Tree
;start=logit
;Maxit=100
;Model:
U(CarD) = a_CarD+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
U(CarP) = b_CarP+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
U(Bus) = c_Bus+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
U(Walk) = d_Walk+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
U(Bike) = e_Bike+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
U(MSM) = e_MSM+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD $
Please help me resolve.
thank you,
Gursimran
From m.umair.k104 at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 15:02:41 2019
From: m.umair.k104 at gmail.com (Muhammad Umair Khan)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 15:02:41 +1100
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Simulation Scenario
Message-ID:
Dear All,
I am a newbie and just started using DCE and NLOGIT. I have three
alternatives; Medication A, Medication B, No medication. One of my
attributes is side-effects (SE) (0= no SE, 1= Mild SE, 2= Moderate SE, 3=
severe SE). I am trying to create a simulation scenario by checking the
probability of taking medication if the severity of side-effects change
from 1 to 3. I am using the following command:
;simulate
;scenario:sidemi(*)=[+]2
I am assuming that by using [+]2 NLOGIT would assume that I want to go two
levels up from 1, that is, from 1 to 3 (mild to severe). Am I correct here?
If no, what should be the best way? Furthermore the output I am getting is,
for example, the probability of people taking medication would reduce by
10%. I am interesting in finding out if this 10% is statistically
significant? Any command through which we can get additional statistics
such as p-value?
Thank you!
Umair
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Thu Dec 12 04:56:37 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 12:56:37 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Simulation Scenario
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Umair. Yes, it will change a 1 to 3. It will also change a 2 to a 4.
Regards
Bill Greene
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:03 PM Muhammad Umair Khan via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am a newbie and just started using DCE and NLOGIT. I have three
> alternatives; Medication A, Medication B, No medication. One of my
> attributes is side-effects (SE) (0= no SE, 1= Mild SE, 2= Moderate SE, 3=
> severe SE). I am trying to create a simulation scenario by checking the
> probability of taking medication if the severity of side-effects change
> from 1 to 3. I am using the following command:
>
> ;simulate
> ;scenario:sidemi(*)=[+]2
>
> I am assuming that by using [+]2 NLOGIT would assume that I want to go two
> levels up from 1, that is, from 1 to 3 (mild to severe). Am I correct here?
> If no, what should be the best way? Furthermore the output I am getting is,
> for example, the probability of people taking medication would reduce by
> 10%. I am interesting in finding out if this 10% is statistically
> significant? Any command through which we can get additional statistics
> such as p-value?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Umair
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/6iWjCgZowLHMv1GnSNxTZw?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Mon Dec 16 08:57:33 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 16:57:33 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Error 1097: Unusable LHS variable in
choice model setup
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Jason. The variable CHOICEV in your data set is not coded correctly for
the choice
model. It is supposed to be zeros and ones, throughout. It is unclear
what you are
using, but the error 14 indicates that every observation is badly coded.
/Bill Greene
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 12:41 AM Jason Ong via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> I am doing a preliminary analysis on a DCE and am trying to run a MNL model
> using NLOGIT 6
> But I came across this error - "Error 1097: Unusable LHS variable in
> choice model setup"
> I am not sure what I am doing wrong with my code (data set also attached as
> *.csv file)
>
> NLOGIT
> ; Lhs = ChoiceV, cset, altij
> ; Choices = A,B,C
> ; Model:
>
> U(A,B)=prep1*prep1+prep2*prep2+condom*condom+sex1*sex1+sex2*sex2+test1*test1+test2*test2+pep*pep/
> U(C)=neither
> $
>
> thanks for your help.
>
> *Jason Ong*
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/ajAoC6X13Rt5krmgIpU_5O?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Mon Dec 16 09:12:51 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:12:51 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <9FA880AA-ADA3-44B0-AABE-FAABE575A4C6@uwaterloo.ca>
References: <9FA880AA-ADA3-44B0-AABE-FAABE575A4C6@uwaterloo.ca>
Message-ID:
Gursimran. You can expand the memory space used for data by using
Tools->Options->Projects. Expand the number of cells, then exit and
restart the program. Your model is overspecified. You can't have constants
for every alternative. At least one must be omitted. It's not clear what
function
the ;IAS=CarP is playing in your model, but you probably don't want it in
there. It is used to set up a Hausman test, but you should only use it for
the MNL. Finally, I'm not certain your specification is rich enough to
support
a three level model like that. You might try starting with something very
simple and building it up a bit at a time.
/Bill Greene
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 1:43 AM Gursimran Kaur Saini via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am trying to develop a mode choice model using a nested Logit model
> using NLOGIT 6.
> I am running into the following errors:
> - I am unable to load my data file onto NLOGIT (with about 250,000
> observations), when I create another file with a part of the data, I was
> able to import it, but not the complete file.
> - Number of choices not equal to the number of alternatives?
>
> I?m not sure what I am doing wrong.
> Here?s the code I am using
>
> Nlogit
> ;Lhs=CHOICE
>
> ;Choices=CarD,CarP,Bus,Walk,Bike,MSM
> ;Tree=Trips{Private[Car(CarD,CarP),MSM],Public[Bus],NMT[Walk,Bike]}
> ;ias=Carp
> ;Show Tree
> ;start=logit
> ;Maxit=100
> ;Model:
> U(CarD) = a_CarD+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
> U(CarP) = b_CarP+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
> U(Bus) = c_Bus+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
> U(Walk) = d_Walk+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
> U(Bike) = e_Bike+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD /
> U(MSM) = e_MSM+tt*TT+vo*VOwn+emp*EMPD+Inc*Income+popn*PopD $
>
> Please help me resolve.
> thank you,
> Gursimran
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/aHStCL7rK8t6qk80CBl46-?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From m.umair.k104 at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 15:33:35 2019
From: m.umair.k104 at gmail.com (Muhammad Umair Khan)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:33:35 +1100
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Simulation Scenario
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Dear Bill,
Thank you very much for your reply. Can I also use the [+]1 scenario
command in case of dummy-coded variables? For example, I have a dummy-coded
variable, mild side-effects, coded as 0 (no side-effects) and 1 (mild
side-effects). Can I simulate a scenario "=[+]1 interpreting that there
would be one level increase in the severity of mild side-effects, that is,
the severity would increase from to mild to, let's say, moderate?
Thank you for your time.
Umair
On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 4:57 AM William Greene via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> Umair. Yes, it will change a 1 to 3. It will also change a 2 to a 4.
> Regards
> Bill Greene
>
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:03 PM Muhammad Umair Khan via Limdep <
> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I am a newbie and just started using DCE and NLOGIT. I have three
> > alternatives; Medication A, Medication B, No medication. One of my
> > attributes is side-effects (SE) (0= no SE, 1= Mild SE, 2= Moderate SE, 3=
> > severe SE). I am trying to create a simulation scenario by checking the
> > probability of taking medication if the severity of side-effects change
> > from 1 to 3. I am using the following command:
> >
> > ;simulate
> > ;scenario:sidemi(*)=[+]2
> >
> > I am assuming that by using [+]2 NLOGIT would assume that I want to go
> two
> > levels up from 1, that is, from 1 to 3 (mild to severe). Am I correct
> here?
> > If no, what should be the best way? Furthermore the output I am getting
> is,
> > for example, the probability of people taking medication would reduce by
> > 10%. I am interesting in finding out if this 10% is statistically
> > significant? Any command through which we can get additional statistics
> > such as p-value?
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Umair
> > _______________________________________________
> > Limdep site list
> > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> >
> >
>
> --
> William Greene
> Department of Economics, emeritus
> Stern School of Business, New York University
> 44 West 4 St.
> New York, NY, 10012
> URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/1BsPCoVzGQigXmgJi1TdeZ?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
> Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
> Ph. +1.646.596.3296
> Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
> Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
> Associate Editor: Economics Letters
> Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
From david.hensher at sydney.edu.au Tue Dec 17 15:38:32 2019
From: david.hensher at sydney.edu.au (David Hensher)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:38:32 +1100
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Simulation Scenario
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <5DF85BC8.2010207@sydney.edu.au>
I think this will result in 0 and 1 becoming 1 and 2
so instead use =1
David Hensher
On 17/12/2019 3:33 PM, Muhammad Umair Khan via Limdep wrote:
> Dear Bill,
>
> Thank you very much for your reply. Can I also use the [+]1 scenario
> command in case of dummy-coded variables? For example, I have a dummy-coded
> variable, mild side-effects, coded as 0 (no side-effects) and 1 (mild
> side-effects). Can I simulate a scenario "=[+]1 interpreting that there
> would be one level increase in the severity of mild side-effects, that is,
> the severity would increase from to mild to, let's say, moderate?
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Umair
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 4:57 AM William Greene via Limdep<
> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>> Umair. Yes, it will change a 1 to 3. It will also change a 2 to a 4.
>> Regards
>> Bill Greene
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:03 PM Muhammad Umair Khan via Limdep<
>> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> I am a newbie and just started using DCE and NLOGIT. I have three
>>> alternatives; Medication A, Medication B, No medication. One of my
>>> attributes is side-effects (SE) (0= no SE, 1= Mild SE, 2= Moderate SE, 3=
>>> severe SE). I am trying to create a simulation scenario by checking the
>>> probability of taking medication if the severity of side-effects change
>>> from 1 to 3. I am using the following command:
>>>
>>> ;simulate
>>> ;scenario:sidemi(*)=[+]2
>>>
>>> I am assuming that by using [+]2 NLOGIT would assume that I want to go
>>>
>> two
>>
>>> levels up from 1, that is, from 1 to 3 (mild to severe). Am I correct
>>>
>> here?
>>
>>> If no, what should be the best way? Furthermore the output I am getting
>>>
>> is,
>>
>>> for example, the probability of people taking medication would reduce by
>>> 10%. I am interesting in finding out if this 10% is statistically
>>> significant? Any command through which we can get additional statistics
>>> such as p-value?
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Umair
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Limdep site list
>>> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
>>> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> William Greene
>> Department of Economics, emeritus
>> Stern School of Business, New York University
>> 44 West 4 St.
>> New York, NY, 10012
>> URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/cq8aCXLKZoi8nEE5u658JA?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
>> Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
>> Ph. +1.646.596.3296
>> Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
>> Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
>> Associate Editor: Economics Letters
>> Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
>> _______________________________________________
>> Limdep site list
>> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
>> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
DAVID HENSHER FASSA, PhD| Professor and Founding Director
Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies | The University of Sydney Business School
THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
Rm 201, Building H73| The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
Street Address: 378 Abercrombie St, Darlington NSW 2008
T +61 2 9114 1871 | F +61 2 9114 1863 | M +61 418 433 057
E David.Hensher at sydney.edu.au | W https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/36ZECYWL1vin3VV1CGXFtP?domain=sydney.edu.au |W https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/Q_nnCZYM2VFkMKK4IKPrXf?domain=sydney.edu.au
Celebrating 25 years of ITLS: 1991-2016 https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/7JgJC1WZXriPpJJzSX0Tj9?domain=youtu.be
ERA Rank 5 (Transportation and Freight Services)
Co-Founder of the International Conference Series on Competition and Ownership of Land Passenger Transport (The 'Thredbo' Series)
https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/m4MWC2xZYvCBk55lT9R0St?domain=thredbo-conference-series.org
https://www.linkedin.com/company/28450714
Second edition of Applied Choice Analysis now available at https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/AoBZC3Q8Z2FymDDAhvuoGK?domain=cambridge.org
Nlogit is the most popular software for choice modellers. See https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/CnY4C4QZ1RFDJ440uj0ROq?domain=limdep.com
See Master of Transport beginning 2020:
* Master of Transport: https://sydney.edu.au/courses/courses/pc/master-of-transport.html
* Graduate Certificate in Transport: https://sydney.edu.au/courses/courses/pc/graduate-certificate-in-transport.html
* Graduate Diploma in Transport: https://sydney.edu.au/courses/courses/pc/graduate-diploma-in-transport.html
CRICOS 00026A
This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please delete it and any attachments.
Please think of our environment and only print this e-mail if necessary.
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Wed Dec 18 02:12:02 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:12:02 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Request to help with estimating marginal
effects
In-Reply-To: <016F0B45C2610A44B0B3F76A466532E0011CE38A@UCEXMBX03-I.canterbury.ac.nz>
References: <016F0B45C2610A44B0B3F76A466532E0011CE2F8@UCEXMBX03-I.canterbury.ac.nz>
<016F0B45C2610A44B0B3F76A466532E0011CE38A@UCEXMBX03-I.canterbury.ac.nz>
Message-ID:
Ashu:
1. The calculation of the elasticities has always been the same.
2. Yes. But, keep in mind, you are computing partial effects for an
average
coefficient, since the coefficients are random.
3. I don't quite understand this question. But, you only need to fit the
model
once, then you can follow with more than one SIMULATE command.
Regards,
Bill Greene
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:08 PM Ashu Kedia
wrote:
> Hi Professor William Greene,
> I hope you are doing well.
>
> I am Ashu Kedia, a PhD student in transportation engineering at the
> University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
>
> I am having a few doubts regarding marginal effects calculation. It will
> be a great help if you could clarify my doubts.
>
>
> 1. I am using Nlogit 5 version to carry out estimations, but have
> been following the Hensher et al. (2005) book to understand the process,
> which might have used Nlogit 3 version.
>
> The book says (on pg. 398 and 399) that the Marginal effects as reported
> are ?true marginal effects multiplied by 100?. So, we need to divide the
> reported values by 100 to obtain the true marginal effect value. Now, I
> presume that this is applicable to that particular version of the software
> (i.e. Nlogit 3 or 4).
>
>
>
> However, I am using Nlogit 5 version, and it is not clear to me whether
> the above convention is applicable to the marginal effects results given by
> the Nlogit 5 version as well?
>
> I am asking this because the marginal effects obtained in my study are
> already very small in magnitude. For example: they vary between 0.08 and
> 1.06. If I divide such small values by 100, it will be exceptionally small.
>
> Is this not uncommon?
>
> Could you please advise on this?
>
>
>
> 2. The examples of marginal effects calculations given in the book,
> Hensher et al. (2005), are for the MNL model specification. Do the syntax
> remains the same if marginal effects are calculated for a mixed logit model?
>
>
>
> 3. Hensher et al. (2005) book has shown two different methods to
> calculate marginal effects for continuous-level data and categorically
> coded data.
>
> Details of attributes and levels adopted in my study are as follows:
>
> Alternatives: 2
>
> Attributes: continuous (e.g. cost, time, etc.) ? 4 attributes with 3
> levels in each; categorical (i.e. qualitative attributes; e.g. type of a
> facility, such as residential or commercial) ? 3 attributes with 2 levels
> in each.
>
> Model type: Mixed logit model with heterogeneity in mean
>
> Marginal effect estimation method: ;Pwt (probability weighted average)
>
>
>
> Question : I have estimated the marginal effects of the continuous level
> attributes, using the method given on page no. 397 (but applying changes to
> the syntax that are required to estimate a mixed logit model).
>
> To estimate the marginal effects for the
> categorically coded variables, the book shows the ?Simulation? method to be
> used.
>
>
>
> However, when we use these two different methods separately to estimate
> marginal effects (i.e. once for continuous variables and then for
> categorical variables), two sets of coefficient values (i.e. parameter
> estimates for the model) are obtained. But we need only one set of
> coefficients for the estimated model. Which one of those two sets of
> estimates are to be adopted for the final reporting?
>
> It will be a great help if you clarify these questions. I am happy to
> provide more details, if needed.
>
> Kind regards
> Ashu
>
> Ashu Kedia
> PhD Student,
> Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering,
> University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140
> New Zealand
> ________________________________
> From: Ashu Kedia
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 12:57 PM
> To: limdep at limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> Subject: Request to help with estimating marginal effects
>
> Hi Professor William Greene,
> I hope you are doing well.
>
> I am Ashu Kedia, a PhD student in transportation engineering at the
> University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
>
> I am having a few doubts regarding marginal effects calculation. It will
> be a great help if you could clarify my doubts.
>
>
> 1. I am using Nlogit 5 version to carry out estimations, but have
> been following the Hensher et al. (2005) book to understand the process,
> which might have used Nlogit 3 version.
>
> The book says (on pg. 398 and 399) that the Marginal effects as reported
> are ?true marginal effects multiplied by 100?. So, we need to divide the
> reported values by 100 to obtain the true marginal effect value. Now, I
> presume that this is applicable to that particular version of the software
> (i.e. Nlogit 3 or 4).
>
>
>
> However, I am using Nlogit 5 version, and it is not clear to me whether
> the above convention is applicable to the marginal effects results given by
> the Nlogit 5 version as well?
>
> I am asking this because the marginal effects obtained in my study are
> already very small in magnitude. For example: they vary between 0.08 and
> 1.06. If I divide such small values by 100, it will be exceptionally small.
>
> Is this not uncommon?
>
> Could you please advise on this?
>
>
>
> 2. The examples of marginal effects calculations given in the book,
> Hensher et al. (2005), are for the MNL model specification. Do the syntax
> remains the same if marginal effects are calculated for a mixed logit model?
>
>
>
> 3. Hensher et al. (2005) book has shown two different methods to
> calculate marginal effects for continuous-level data and categorically
> coded data.
>
> Details of attributes and levels adopted in my study are as follows:
>
> Alternatives: 2
>
> Attributes: continuous (e.g. cost, time, etc.) ? 4 attributes with 3
> levels in each; categorical (i.e. qualitative attributes; e.g. type of a
> facility, such as residential or commercial) ? 3 attributes with 2 levels
> in each.
>
> Model type: Mixed logit model with heterogeneity in mean
>
> Marginal effect estimation method: ;Pwt (probability weighted average)
>
>
>
> Question : I have estimated the marginal effects of the continuous level
> attributes, using the method given on page no. 397 (but applying changes to
> the syntax that are required to estimate a mixed logit model).
>
> To estimate the marginal effects for the
> categorically coded variables, the book shows the ?Simulation? method to be
> used.
>
>
>
> However, when we use these two different methods separately to estimate
> marginal effects (i.e. once for continuous variables and then for
> categorical variables), two sets of coefficient values (i.e. parameter
> estimates for the model) are obtained. But we need only one set of
> coefficients for the estimated model. Which one of those two sets of
> estimates are to be adopted for the final reporting?
>
> It will be a great help if you clarify these questions. I am happy to
> provide more details, if needed.
>
> Kind regards
> Ashu
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/7AcWClxwB5CV1N0zFG8m2u?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From dgiantsios at uom.gr Wed Dec 18 03:52:10 2019
From: dgiantsios at uom.gr (dgiantsios at uom.gr)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 18:52:10 +0200
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Bhargava/Sargan Test
Message-ID: <9f1fac425ae97ce1fd073354c08047eb@uom.gr>
Dear All
Recently i run a dynamic random effects model with the two-step GMM
estimation method because i include the lagged dependent variable in the
regressors. LIMDEP/NLOGIT 5 gives the Bhargava/Sargan test but i cannot
understand which H0 hypothesis this test searches. Is it preferable to
obtain p-values for this statistic near zero or near one in order to
have accurate estimates?
Thanks n Advance
From m.umair.k104 at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 16:11:41 2019
From: m.umair.k104 at gmail.com (Muhammad Umair Khan)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:11:41 +1100
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Simulation Scenario
In-Reply-To: <5DF85BC8.2010207@sydney.edu.au>
References:
<5DF85BC8.2010207@sydney.edu.au>
Message-ID:
Thank you David for your response. Lastly, could you please comment on my
interpretation of the output after I used the following command.
;simulate
;scenario:sidemi(meda,medb)=1
;arc
;full
;pwt
Attr Changed in | Change in Probability of Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choice MEDA | MEDA MEDB NONE
x = SIDEMI | -.090 -.024 .202
Choice MEDB | MEDA MEDB NONE
x = SIDEMI | -.026 -.064 .174
My interpretation:
One unit increase in SIDEMI, that is from 0 (no side-effects) to 1 (mild
side-effects) would decrease the probability of choosing Med A by 0.90 and
Med B by 0.026 while the probability of choosing no medication (none) would
increase by 0.202 and 0.174 for MedA and MedB respectively.
Your comment will be highly appreciated.
Thanks,
Umair
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:38 PM David Hensher
wrote:
> I think this will result in 0 and 1 becoming 1 and 2
>
> so instead use =1
>
>
> David Hensher
> On 17/12/2019 3:33 PM, Muhammad Umair Khan via Limdep wrote:
> > Dear Bill,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your reply. Can I also use the [+]1 scenario
> > command in case of dummy-coded variables? For example, I have a
> dummy-coded
> > variable, mild side-effects, coded as 0 (no side-effects) and 1 (mild
> > side-effects). Can I simulate a scenario "=[+]1 interpreting that there
> > would be one level increase in the severity of mild side-effects, that
> is,
> > the severity would increase from to mild to, let's say, moderate?
> >
> > Thank you for your time.
> >
> > Umair
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 4:57 AM William Greene via Limdep<
> > limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Umair. Yes, it will change a 1 to 3. It will also change a 2 to a 4.
> >> Regards
> >> Bill Greene
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:03 PM Muhammad Umair Khan via Limdep<
> >> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Dear All,
> >>>
> >>> I am a newbie and just started using DCE and NLOGIT. I have three
> >>> alternatives; Medication A, Medication B, No medication. One of my
> >>> attributes is side-effects (SE) (0= no SE, 1= Mild SE, 2= Moderate SE,
> 3=
> >>> severe SE). I am trying to create a simulation scenario by checking the
> >>> probability of taking medication if the severity of side-effects change
> >>> from 1 to 3. I am using the following command:
> >>>
> >>> ;simulate
> >>> ;scenario:sidemi(*)=[+]2
> >>>
> >>> I am assuming that by using [+]2 NLOGIT would assume that I want to go
> >>>
> >> two
> >>
> >>> levels up from 1, that is, from 1 to 3 (mild to severe). Am I correct
> >>>
> >> here?
> >>
> >>> If no, what should be the best way? Furthermore the output I am getting
> >>>
> >> is,
> >>
> >>> for example, the probability of people taking medication would reduce
> by
> >>> 10%. I am interesting in finding out if this 10% is statistically
> >>> significant? Any command through which we can get additional statistics
> >>> such as p-value?
> >>>
> >>> Thank you!
> >>>
> >>> Umair
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Limdep site list
> >>> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> >>> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> William Greene
> >> Department of Economics, emeritus
> >> Stern School of Business, New York University
> >> 44 West 4 St.
> >> New York, NY, 10012
> >> URL:
> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/JSXECmOxDQtgWNrRfGzTQ6?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
> >> Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
> >> Ph. +1.646.596.3296
> >> Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
> >> Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
> >> Associate Editor: Economics Letters
> >> Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Limdep site list
> >> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> >> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Limdep site list
> > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> DAVID HENSHER FASSA, PhD| Professor and Founding Director
> Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies | The University of Sydney
> Business School
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY
> Rm 201, Building H73| The University of Sydney | NSW | 2006
> Street Address: 378 Abercrombie St, Darlington NSW 2008
> T +61 2 9114 1871 | F +61 2 9114 1863 | M +61 418 433 057
> E David.Hensher at sydney.edu.au | W https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/Sc_fCnxyErCPmNY6tJDy26?domain=sydney.edu.au |W
> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/CG-JCoVzGQigv30KfVSAee?domain=sydney.edu.au
>
> Celebrating 25 years of ITLS: 1991-2016 https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/dt8oCp8AJQtVA3BxsG07tL?domain=youtu.be
> ERA Rank 5 (Transportation and Freight Services)
> Co-Founder of the International Conference Series on Competition and
> Ownership of Land Passenger Transport (The 'Thredbo' Series)
> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/N3ZTCq7BKYtEXjo7fNSG70?domain=thredbo-conference-series.org
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/28450714
> Second edition of Applied Choice Analysis now available at
> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/xo21Cr8DLRtk2lGDtNASOq?domain=cambridge.org
> Nlogit is the most popular software for choice modellers. See
> https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/PYoJCvl0PoCYAz3yHyem_y?domain=limdep.com
> See Master of Transport beginning 2020:
> * Master of Transport:
> https://sydney.edu.au/courses/courses/pc/master-of-transport.html
> * Graduate Certificate in Transport:
> https://sydney.edu.au/courses/courses/pc/graduate-certificate-in-transport.html
> * Graduate Diploma in Transport:
> https://sydney.edu.au/courses/courses/pc/graduate-diploma-in-transport.html
>
> CRICOS 00026A
> This email plus any attachments to it are confidential. Any unauthorised
> use is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please
> delete it and any attachments.
>
> Please think of our environment and only print this e-mail if necessary.
>
>
>
From mahsataslimi at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 03:49:49 2019
From: mahsataslimi at gmail.com (Mahsa Taslimi)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 20:19:49 +0330
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Nlogit ;pds
Message-ID:
Hi
I am estimating RPL, LC, and LC-RPL models. I have a question about the
observation and sample size.
h have 2352 observations which are 784 in Nlogit. and the RpL got ; PDS for
the fixed variable or the grouping.
the estimation says I have 784 observations and the RPL or LC models got 98
groups and 2= pds. actually the WTP wil be 392 rows. what is this 392? is
it the observations? or what?
How does it work? i am learning it by myself. can anyone help me with this?
Thanks
Mahsa
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Fri Dec 20 04:57:18 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:57:18 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Nlogit ;pds
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Mahsa. For commands that have verb NLOGIT, the ;PDS is the number of choice
tasks. One of my data sets has 12,800 rows of data. There are 400
individuals in
the sample. Each individual faces 8 choice tasks. Each choice task
involves 4
alternatives. So, the number of choice tasks in the data set is 12,800/4 =
3,200.
For purposes of "panel data," the PDS for NLOGIT commands would be ;Pds=8.
Note that ;PDS for other commands such as PROBIT would be Pds=32, but of
course,
this is wrong for multinomial choice data.
/B. Greene
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM Mahsa Taslimi via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am estimating RPL, LC, and LC-RPL models. I have a question about the
> observation and sample size.
> h have 2352 observations which are 784 in Nlogit. and the RpL got ; PDS for
> the fixed variable or the grouping.
> the estimation says I have 784 observations and the RPL or LC models got 98
> groups and 2= pds. actually the WTP wil be 392 rows. what is this 392? is
> it the observations? or what?
>
> How does it work? i am learning it by myself. can anyone help me with this?
>
> Thanks
> Mahsa
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/zOaRC2xZYvCB7EzXtn0pNL?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From mahsataslimi at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 05:52:15 2019
From: mahsataslimi at gmail.com (Mahsa Taslimi)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:22:15 +0330
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Nlogit ;pds
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Thanks, Dr. Greene for replaying.
I have two more questions left, I have 98 individuals and 8 choice cards
and 3 alternatives in each choice cards and 2352 rows. all Data are the
panel.
I am using RPLOGIT, LCLOGIT, and LCRPLOGIT commands in the NLOGIT. based on
your comment, I should use;pds=8. is it right?
But in LCRPLOGIT the results of estimation says that the N=784, fixed
number of observations is 2, the lcm model with panel 392 groups and the
WTP are for 392 groups. how should I interpret 392? I don't know what is it?
Thanks again
Mahsa
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:28 PM William Greene via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> Mahsa. For commands that have verb NLOGIT, the ;PDS is the number of
> choice
> tasks. One of my data sets has 12,800 rows of data. There are 400
> individuals in
> the sample. Each individual faces 8 choice tasks. Each choice task
> involves 4
> alternatives. So, the number of choice tasks in the data set is 12,800/4 =
> 3,200.
> For purposes of "panel data," the PDS for NLOGIT commands would be ;Pds=8.
> Note that ;PDS for other commands such as PROBIT would be Pds=32, but of
> course,
> this is wrong for multinomial choice data.
> /B. Greene
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM Mahsa Taslimi via Limdep <
> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I am estimating RPL, LC, and LC-RPL models. I have a question about the
> > observation and sample size.
> > h have 2352 observations which are 784 in Nlogit. and the RpL got ; PDS
> for
> > the fixed variable or the grouping.
> > the estimation says I have 784 observations and the RPL or LC models got
> 98
> > groups and 2= pds. actually the WTP wil be 392 rows. what is this 392? is
> > it the observations? or what?
> >
> > How does it work? i am learning it by myself. can anyone help me with
> this?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mahsa
> > _______________________________________________
> > Limdep site list
> > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> >
> >
>
> --
> William Greene
> Department of Economics, emeritus
> Stern School of Business, New York University
> 44 West 4 St.
> New York, NY, 10012
> URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/4PuhC71ZgLt8LQ76F83jZf?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
> Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
> Ph. +1.646.596.3296
> Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
> Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
> Associate Editor: Economics Letters
> Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
From wgreene at stern.nyu.edu Fri Dec 20 06:02:31 2019
From: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu (William Greene)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:02:31 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Nlogit ;pds
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Mahsa. You can ignore the 392 (= 784/2) You should be using PDS=8
in all cases. The problem is that the program is reconciling the general
use of PDS for by LIMDEP with the special counting rule for the NLOGIT
multinomial choice commands. I'm assuming that you really do have 3
alternatives every time and that the choice set is correctly set for all the
choice models.
./B. Greene
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:53 PM Mahsa Taslimi via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> Thanks, Dr. Greene for replaying.
> I have two more questions left, I have 98 individuals and 8 choice cards
> and 3 alternatives in each choice cards and 2352 rows. all Data are the
> panel.
>
> I am using RPLOGIT, LCLOGIT, and LCRPLOGIT commands in the NLOGIT. based on
> your comment, I should use;pds=8. is it right?
> But in LCRPLOGIT the results of estimation says that the N=784, fixed
> number of observations is 2, the lcm model with panel 392 groups and the
> WTP are for 392 groups. how should I interpret 392? I don't know what is
> it?
>
> Thanks again
> Mahsa
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:28 PM William Greene via Limdep <
> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Mahsa. For commands that have verb NLOGIT, the ;PDS is the number of
> > choice
> > tasks. One of my data sets has 12,800 rows of data. There are 400
> > individuals in
> > the sample. Each individual faces 8 choice tasks. Each choice task
> > involves 4
> > alternatives. So, the number of choice tasks in the data set is
> 12,800/4 =
> > 3,200.
> > For purposes of "panel data," the PDS for NLOGIT commands would be
> ;Pds=8.
> > Note that ;PDS for other commands such as PROBIT would be Pds=32, but of
> > course,
> > this is wrong for multinomial choice data.
> > /B. Greene
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM Mahsa Taslimi via Limdep <
> > limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I am estimating RPL, LC, and LC-RPL models. I have a question about the
> > > observation and sample size.
> > > h have 2352 observations which are 784 in Nlogit. and the RpL got ; PDS
> > for
> > > the fixed variable or the grouping.
> > > the estimation says I have 784 observations and the RPL or LC models
> got
> > 98
> > > groups and 2= pds. actually the WTP wil be 392 rows. what is this 392?
> is
> > > it the observations? or what?
> > >
> > > How does it work? i am learning it by myself. can anyone help me with
> > this?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Mahsa
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Limdep site list
> > > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > William Greene
> > Department of Economics, emeritus
> > Stern School of Business, New York University
> > 44 West 4 St.
> > New York, NY, 10012
> > URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/oFWtCvl0PoCYv4GRhQ2fjo?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
> > Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
> > Ph. +1.646.596.3296
> > Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
> > Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
> > Associate Editor: Economics Letters
> > Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
> > _______________________________________________
> > Limdep site list
> > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
--
William Greene
Department of Economics, emeritus
Stern School of Business, New York University
44 West 4 St.
New York, NY, 10012
URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/oFWtCvl0PoCYv4GRhQ2fjo?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
Ph. +1.646.596.3296
Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
Associate Editor: Economics Letters
Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
From mahsataslimi at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 06:10:41 2019
From: mahsataslimi at gmail.com (Mahsa Taslimi)
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 22:40:41 +0330
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Nlogit ;pds
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Thank you. it is very helpful.
Best regards
Mahsa
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:33 PM William Greene via Limdep <
limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> Mahsa. You can ignore the 392 (= 784/2) You should be using PDS=8
> in all cases. The problem is that the program is reconciling the general
> use of PDS for by LIMDEP with the special counting rule for the NLOGIT
> multinomial choice commands. I'm assuming that you really do have 3
> alternatives every time and that the choice set is correctly set for all
> the
> choice models.
> ./B. Greene
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:53 PM Mahsa Taslimi via Limdep <
> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > Thanks, Dr. Greene for replaying.
> > I have two more questions left, I have 98 individuals and 8 choice cards
> > and 3 alternatives in each choice cards and 2352 rows. all Data are the
> > panel.
> >
> > I am using RPLOGIT, LCLOGIT, and LCRPLOGIT commands in the NLOGIT. based
> on
> > your comment, I should use;pds=8. is it right?
> > But in LCRPLOGIT the results of estimation says that the N=784, fixed
> > number of observations is 2, the lcm model with panel 392 groups and the
> > WTP are for 392 groups. how should I interpret 392? I don't know what is
> > it?
> >
> > Thanks again
> > Mahsa
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:28 PM William Greene via Limdep <
> > limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Mahsa. For commands that have verb NLOGIT, the ;PDS is the number of
> > > choice
> > > tasks. One of my data sets has 12,800 rows of data. There are 400
> > > individuals in
> > > the sample. Each individual faces 8 choice tasks. Each choice task
> > > involves 4
> > > alternatives. So, the number of choice tasks in the data set is
> > 12,800/4 =
> > > 3,200.
> > > For purposes of "panel data," the PDS for NLOGIT commands would be
> > ;Pds=8.
> > > Note that ;PDS for other commands such as PROBIT would be Pds=32, but
> of
> > > course,
> > > this is wrong for multinomial choice data.
> > > /B. Greene
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM Mahsa Taslimi via Limdep <
> > > limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > I am estimating RPL, LC, and LC-RPL models. I have a question about
> the
> > > > observation and sample size.
> > > > h have 2352 observations which are 784 in Nlogit. and the RpL got ;
> PDS
> > > for
> > > > the fixed variable or the grouping.
> > > > the estimation says I have 784 observations and the RPL or LC models
> > got
> > > 98
> > > > groups and 2= pds. actually the WTP wil be 392 rows. what is this
> 392?
> > is
> > > > it the observations? or what?
> > > >
> > > > How does it work? i am learning it by myself. can anyone help me with
> > > this?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Mahsa
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Limdep site list
> > > > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > > > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > William Greene
> > > Department of Economics, emeritus
> > > Stern School of Business, New York University
> > > 44 West 4 St.
> > > New York, NY, 10012
> > > URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/ifFSCVAGXPtWMz0DCGI6at?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
> > > Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
> > > Ph. +1.646.596.3296
> > > Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
> > > Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
> > > Associate Editor: Economics Letters
> > > Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Limdep site list
> > > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Limdep site list
> > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
> >
> >
>
> --
> William Greene
> Department of Economics, emeritus
> Stern School of Business, New York University
> 44 West 4 St.
> New York, NY, 10012
> URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/ifFSCVAGXPtWMz0DCGI6at?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
> Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
> Ph. +1.646.596.3296
> Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
> Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
> Associate Editor: Economics Letters
> Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
> _______________________________________________
> Limdep site list
> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>
>
From mahsataslimi at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 12:42:20 2019
From: mahsataslimi at gmail.com (Mahsa Taslimi)
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 05:12:20 +0330
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Nlogit ;pds
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Hi again,
I got a problem with Estimating WTP in LCRPL model. it is overestimated. I
have 3 levels for the price: 400 (status quo), 1000 and 2000. The MWTP is
above 2000. I don't know what to do, Thanks
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:40 PM Mahsa Taslimi
wrote:
> Thank you. it is very helpful.
>
> Best regards
> Mahsa
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:33 PM William Greene via Limdep <
> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> Mahsa. You can ignore the 392 (= 784/2) You should be using PDS=8
>> in all cases. The problem is that the program is reconciling the general
>> use of PDS for by LIMDEP with the special counting rule for the NLOGIT
>> multinomial choice commands. I'm assuming that you really do have 3
>> alternatives every time and that the choice set is correctly set for all
>> the
>> choice models.
>> ./B. Greene
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:53 PM Mahsa Taslimi via Limdep <
>> limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks, Dr. Greene for replaying.
>> > I have two more questions left, I have 98 individuals and 8 choice cards
>> > and 3 alternatives in each choice cards and 2352 rows. all Data are the
>> > panel.
>> >
>> > I am using RPLOGIT, LCLOGIT, and LCRPLOGIT commands in the NLOGIT.
>> based on
>> > your comment, I should use;pds=8. is it right?
>> > But in LCRPLOGIT the results of estimation says that the N=784, fixed
>> > number of observations is 2, the lcm model with panel 392 groups and
>> the
>> > WTP are for 392 groups. how should I interpret 392? I don't know what is
>> > it?
>> >
>> > Thanks again
>> > Mahsa
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:28 PM William Greene via Limdep <
>> > limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Mahsa. For commands that have verb NLOGIT, the ;PDS is the number of
>> > > choice
>> > > tasks. One of my data sets has 12,800 rows of data. There are 400
>> > > individuals in
>> > > the sample. Each individual faces 8 choice tasks. Each choice task
>> > > involves 4
>> > > alternatives. So, the number of choice tasks in the data set is
>> > 12,800/4 =
>> > > 3,200.
>> > > For purposes of "panel data," the PDS for NLOGIT commands would be
>> > ;Pds=8.
>> > > Note that ;PDS for other commands such as PROBIT would be Pds=32, but
>> of
>> > > course,
>> > > this is wrong for multinomial choice data.
>> > > /B. Greene
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:50 AM Mahsa Taslimi via Limdep <
>> > > limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi
>> > > >
>> > > > I am estimating RPL, LC, and LC-RPL models. I have a question about
>> the
>> > > > observation and sample size.
>> > > > h have 2352 observations which are 784 in Nlogit. and the RpL got ;
>> PDS
>> > > for
>> > > > the fixed variable or the grouping.
>> > > > the estimation says I have 784 observations and the RPL or LC models
>> > got
>> > > 98
>> > > > groups and 2= pds. actually the WTP wil be 392 rows. what is this
>> 392?
>> > is
>> > > > it the observations? or what?
>> > > >
>> > > > How does it work? i am learning it by myself. can anyone help me
>> with
>> > > this?
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks
>> > > > Mahsa
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Limdep site list
>> > > > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
>> > > > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > William Greene
>> > > Department of Economics, emeritus
>> > > Stern School of Business, New York University
>> > > 44 West 4 St.
>> > > New York, NY, 10012
>> > > URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/QYeICgZowLHorAK5sN339Q?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
>> > > Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
>> > > Ph. +1.646.596.3296
>> > > Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
>> > > Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
>> > > Associate Editor: Economics Letters
>> > > Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Limdep site list
>> > > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
>> > > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>> > >
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Limdep site list
>> > Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
>> > http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> William Greene
>> Department of Economics, emeritus
>> Stern School of Business, New York University
>> 44 West 4 St.
>> New York, NY, 10012
>> URL: https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/QYeICgZowLHorAK5sN339Q?domain=people.stern.nyu.edu
>> Email: wgreene at stern.nyu.edu
>> Ph. +1.646.596.3296
>> Editor in Chief: Journal of Productivity Analysis
>> Editor in Chief: Foundations and Trends in Econometrics
>> Associate Editor: Economics Letters
>> Associate Editor: Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
>> _______________________________________________
>> Limdep site list
>> Limdep at mailman.sydney.edu.au
>> http://limdep.itls.usyd.edu.au
>>
>>
From aappiah at ualberta.ca Tue Dec 24 12:44:09 2019
From: aappiah at ualberta.ca (Alfred Appiah)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 18:44:09 -0700
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Unsubscribe
Message-ID:
Unsubscribe
--
Alfred Appiah
587-778-3278
From mahsataslimi at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 14:51:58 2019
From: mahsataslimi at gmail.com (Mahsa Taslimi)
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 07:21:58 +0330
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] WTP
Message-ID:
Hi
I got a problem with Estimating WTP in the LCRPL model. it is
overestimated. I have 3 levels for the price: 400 (status quo), 1000 and
2000. The MWTP is above 2000.
LCRPLogit ;lhs=choice ;choices=type1,type2,type3
;model:
u(type*)= a1*fn+a2*mhz+a3*egh+a4*si+a5*ej+a6*pr
;rpl ;halton
;draws=500
;fcn=a5(n) ;pds=8
;lcm ;pts=2
;Par ;wtp = a1/a6, a2/a6, a3/a6, a4/a6, a5/a6
;Parameters
;Effects : fn(*)/pr(*), mhz(*)/pr(*), egh(*)/pr(*), ej(*)/pr(*),
si(*)/pr(*) $
MATRIX ;list ;1/79 *wtp_i'1 $
MATRIX ;list ;1/79 *classp_i' 1 $
can you please help me with this?
From fengxiaz at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 14:52:43 2019
From: fengxiaz at gmail.com (fengxia zhu)
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 22:52:43 -0500
Subject: [Limdep Nlogit List] Saved Matrices for Average Partial Effects
Coefficients
Message-ID:
Hi,
I'm using Fractional Response Model with the "Partial" command.
I would like to use the Average Partial Effects coefficients ( the
coefficients and the variance of the coefficients) for subsequent
bootstrapping procedures but couldn't find them under
"projects-->matrices-->B/VarB". It appears that only the coefficients for
conditional mean and group mean are stored.
Is there any way to save/find the B and VarB for the APE coefficients? Any
suggestions are appreciated!
Sandy
Cleveland State University