Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes:Utility maximization, regret minimization, or both?

This paper proposes a discrete mixture model which assigns individuals, up to a probability, to either a class of random utility (RU) maximizers or a class of random regret (RR) minimizers, on the basis of their sequence of observed choices. Our proposed model advances the state of the art of RU-RR mixture models by (i) adding and simultaneously estimating a membership model which predicts the probability of belonging to a RU or RR class; (ii) adding a layer of random taste heterogeneity within each behavioural class; and (iii) deriving a welfare measure associated with the RU-RR mixture model and consistent with referendum-voting, which is the adequate mechanism of provision for such local public goods. The context of our empirical application is a stated choice experiment concerning traffic calming schemes. We find that the random parameter RU-RR mixture model not only outperforms its fixed coefficient counterpart in terms of fit-as expected-but also in terms of plausibility of membership determinants of behavioural class. In line with psychological theories of regret, we find that, compared to respondents who are familiar with the choice context (i.e. the traffic calming scheme), unfamiliar respondents are more likely to be regret minimizers than utility maximizers. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

A Lagrangian approach for modeling road collisions using second-order models of traffic flow

In [M. Herty, A. Klein, S. Moutari, V. Schleper, and G. Steinaur, IMA J. Appl. Math., 78(5), 1087–1108, 2013] and [M. Herty and V. Schleper, ZAMM J. Appl. Math. Mech., 91, 763–776, 2011], a macroscopic approach, derived from fluid-dynamics models, has been introduced to infer traffic conditions prone to road traffic collisions along highways’ sections. In these studies, the governing equations are coupled within an Eulerian framework, which assumes fixed interfaces between the models. A coupling in Lagrangian coordinates would enable us to get rid of this (not very realistic) assumption. In this paper, we investigate the well-posedness and the suitability of the coupling of the governing equations within the Lagrangian framework. Further, we illustrate some features of the proposed approach through some numerical simulations.

On the Merit of Selecting Different Belief Merging Operators

Belief merging operators combine multiple belief bases (a profile) into a collective one. When the conjunction of belief bases is consistent, all the operators agree on the result. However, if the conjunction of belief bases is inconsistent, the results vary between operators. There is no formal manner to measure the results and decide on which operator to select. So, in this paper we propose to evaluate the result of merging operators by using three ordering relations (fairness, satisfaction and strength) over operators for a given profile. Moreover, a relation of conformity over operators is introduced in order to classify how well the operator conforms to the definition of a merging operator. By using the four proposed relations we provide a comparison of some classical merging operators and evaluate the results for some specific profiles.

A comparison of merging operators in possibilistic logic.

In this paper, we compare merging operators in possibilistic logic. We rst propose an approach to evaluating the discriminating power of a merging operator. After that, we analyze the computational complexity of existing possibilistic merging operators. Finally, we consider the compatibility of possibilistic merging operators with propositional merging operators.