Implications of Competitor Representation for Profit-Maximizing Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Design optimization studies that model competition with other products in the market often use a small set of products to represent all competitors. We investigate the effect of competitor product representation on profit-maximizing design solutions. Specifically, we study the implications of replacing a large set of disaggregated elemental competitor products with a subset of competitor products or composite products. We derive first-order optimality conditions and show that optimal design (but not price) is independent of competitors when using logit and nested logit models (where preferences are homogeneous). However, this relationship differs in the case of random-coefficients logit models (where preferences are heterogeneous), and we demonstrate that profit-maximizing design solutions using latent-class or mixed-logit models can (but need not always) depend on the representation of competing products. We discuss factors that affect the magnitude of the difference between models with elemental and composite representations of competitors, including preference heterogeneity, cost function curvature, and competitor set specification. We present correction factors that ensure models using subsets or composite representation of competitors have optimal design solutions that match those of disaggregated elemental models. While optimal designs using logit and nested logit models are not affected by ad hoc modeling decisions of competitor representation, the independence of optimal designs from competitors when using these models raises questions of when these models are appropriate to use.
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 | 0.013 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".