Capturing Flexible Heterogeneous Utility Curves: A Bayesian Spline Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical evidence suggests that decision makers often weight successive additional units of a valued attribute or monetary endowment unequally, so that their utility functions are intrinsically nonlinear or irregularly shaped. Although the analyst may impose various functional specifications exogenously, this approach is ad hoc, tedious, and reliant on various metrics to decide which specification is “best.” In this paper, we develop a method that yields individual-level, flexibly shaped utility functions for use in choice models. This flexibility at the individual level is accomplished through splines of the truncated power basis type in a general additive regression framework for latent utility. Because the number and location of spline knots are unknown, we use the birth-death process of Denison et al. (1998) and Green’s (1995) reversible jump method. We further show how exogenous constraints suggested by theory, such as monotonicity of price response, can be accommodated. Our formulation is particularly suited to estimating reaction to pricing, where individual-level monotonicity is justified theoretically and empirically, but linearity is typically not. The method is illustrated in a conjoint application in which all covariates are splined simultaneously and in three panel data sets, each of which has a single price spline. Empirical results indicate that piecewise linear splines with a modest number of knots fit these data well, substantially better than heterogeneous linear and log-linear a priori specifications. In terms of price response specifically, we find that although aggregate market-level curves can be nearly linear or log-linear, individuals often deviate widely from either. Using splines, hold-out prediction improvement over the standard heterogeneous probit model ranges from 6% to 14% in the scanner applications and exceeds 20% in the conjoint study. Moreover, “optimal” profiles in conjoint and aggregate price response curves in the scanner applications can differ markedly under the standard and the spline-based models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".