Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Experimental Assortments for Choice Estimation and Nest Identification

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A deliberately chosen set of O(log n) assortments is enough to exactly recover the nest structure of any Nested Logit choice model, and the same design improves estimation across a broad benchmark.

desk verdict Clever O(log n) design for nest identification, but Assumption 2 is doing real identifiability work and the abstract overclaims. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.16137 v2 pith:EWQW4I7A submitted 2026-02-18 stat.ME

Xintong Yu , Will Ma , Michael Zhao This is my paper
classification stat.ME MSC 62K0562H3091B42
keywords experimentdesignchoicemodelsNestedLogitnestidentificationboostfactorsbinaryencodingassortmentoptimizationmarketshares
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the choice of experimental assortments—not just the estimation method—is a first-order determinant of how well a choice model can be learned from data. It proposes a combinatorial design that assigns each of n items a unique binary code and, for each digit position, offers two assortments: all items whose bit is 1 and all items whose bit is 0. With only 2⌈log2 n⌉ experimental assortments plus a control, the design guarantees exact recovery of the nest partition of any Nested Logit ground truth, provided exact market shares and a general-position condition on the model parameters. The same design consistently reduces estimation error relative to randomized assortments across a benchmark of choice models, and it was used in a large-scale field deployment on a fantasy sports platform.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the boost factor BF(i,S)=φ(i,S)/φ(i,[n]), which under Nested Logit factors as a nest-dependent multiplier Mult(N,S) times a common outside-option boost. Because the multiplier does not depend on which item inside a nest is considered, comparing boosts across items in an assortment yields same/different nest relations; the general-position assumption makes these comparisons two-way. Algorithm 1 stores these relations in an adjacency matrix of unknown entries and completes it with transitivity and clique-completion rules, yielding the exact partition.

What would settle it

Simulate a Nested Logit ground truth with two nests of equal total preference weight and equal dissimilarity parameter, using an encoding where both nests are partially removed by the same assortment and all boost factors coincide; with exact market shares, Algorithm 1 will output a single merged nest, showing the theorem's assumption is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central theorem is that, under Nested Logit with an outside option, exact observation of market shares for these O(log n) assortments lets Algorithm 1 return the true partition of items into nests. The argument compares, for each item in each experimental assortment, the ratio of its choice probability to its probability in the full assortment—the boost factor. Items in the same nest have identical boost factors; by a general-position assumption, unequal nests that are partially removed show unequal boosts, and items whose boost equals the outside option's boost are separated from all unavailable items. The paper proves correctness of the deduction steps, including one-hop transitivity a

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the general-position assumption that two distinct nests never have exactly the same boost multiplier on any experimental assortment that partially removes both; if that coincidence occurs, the algorithm merges distinct nests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A firm can identify substitution groups among n items using only O(log n) carefully balanced test menus rather than many random assortments, so experimentation can run in parallel or over short horizons.
  • Data-driven nests can replace ex-ante judgment and fixed nests in Nested Logit estimation; after nests are identified, the remaining parameters are identifiable from the same O(log n) data under a non-degeneracy condition.
  • The Ω(log n) lower bound means no adaptive procedure can do better in the worst case, so the design is order-optimal for this identification problem.
  • In well-specified settings, the design can beat even individualized random assortments, and in mis-specified settings it improves estimation for small data sizes.
  • The field deployment showed that Nested Logit with learned nests can beat both MNL and feature-based clustering out of sample.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Assumption 2 fails on the true parameter values, the exact-recovery guarantee silently breaks: two nests with equal multipliers on every separating assortment are merged. The paper does not provide a test for this condition, so in deployments one must rely on the noisy-data version, whose community-detection step has no comparable guarantee.
  • The paper's numerical advantage for non-Nested-Logit choice models is not explained by theory; a plausible inference is that half-sized, balanced assortments maximize information per observation, but the authors do not prove this. A direct test would be to compare variance of estimates under balanced versus randomized designs at fixed budget and fixed number of menus.
  • Appendix D sketches deeper nesting trees but only proves the bottom two levels and defers higher levels to an omitted algebraic uniqueness argument; a reader applying this to multi-level nesting should treat that part as a roadmap rather than a theorem.
  • A testable deployment extension: use the learned nests to re-run the same 14-menu design on a different sports season; if nests are stable across seasons, the boost-factor signature of substitution is a persistent behavioral feature rather than an artifact of one product set.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a non-adaptive experiment design for discrete-choice data collection that requires only O(log n) distinct assortments, based on assigning items binary encodings and offering one assortment per digit value. It reports numerical gains over randomized and other designs for a range of choice models, and develops a Nested Logit nest-identification algorithm that, under Assumptions 1 and 2, recovers the exact nest partition from exact market shares (Theorems 4.5 and 4.8). A finite-sample guarantee (Theorem 4.6) and an Ω(log n) lower bound (Theorem B.1) are also given. The paper includes a large numerical study and a deployment at Dream11.

Significance. The O(log n) design is elegant, the graph-reconstruction formulation is novel, and the lower bound strengthens the contribution. The main proofs are detailed and appear correct under the stated assumptions. The finite-sample theorem and the empirical comparison, including the Dream11 deployment, are valuable. However, the abstract and parts of the introduction claim an unconditional guarantee of nest identification for any Nested Logit ground truth, which is not what the theorems establish. This is a substantive overstatement rather than a cosmetic issue, and it should be corrected before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §1.2, Theorem 4.5] The abstract states that the design and algorithm 'guarantees correct identification of nests under any Nested Logit ground truth.' This is false as written. Theorem 4.5 is explicitly conditional on Assumption 2, and Assumption 2 is a substantive condition, not a harmless general-position clause. Consider n=4 with nests {1,2} and {3,4}, encodings 1=00, 2=11, 3=01, 4=10, all v_i=1, lambda=0.5 for both nests, outside weight 1. For every experimental assortment in the design, both nests are partially removed and Mult(N,S)=Mult(N',S)=sqrt(2), so all offered items have identical boost factors. Algorithm 1 then sets E[i,j]=1 for every pair that co-occurs in some assortment, and the transitivity steps merge all four items into one nest. The output is wrong, and since exact market shares are assumed, no amount of data fixes it. The abstract and the 'guaranteed for any Nested Logit ground truth'
  2. [§4.1, Assumption 2] Assumption 2 is stated in terms of unobserved multipliers Mult(N,S) and is not implied by the Nested Logit functional form or by Assumption 1. The paper calls it a 'general position' assumption but provides no formal genericity statement (e.g., that the set of parameters violating it has measure zero under a natural prior), nor a data-based check. The counterexample in the previous comment shows that when it fails, a plausible and simple Nested Logit model yields incorrect output with no warning from the algorithm. For an identification claim, the paper should either prove a genericity result, or explicitly characterize Assumption 2 as part of the model class being identified, and state the consequences when it fails.
  3. [§4.4, Theorem 4.8] The no-outside-option theorem allows Algorithm 2 to output 1 for pairs of singleton nests, and the proof acknowledges that the resulting matrix may be non-transitive. This is acceptable for reconstructing the choice function if lambda for merged singletons is recovered as 1, but the paper's headline statements about 'correct nest identification' are again stronger than what is proved. The final paragraph of the proof says 'we can arbitrarily divide' the violating items into nests; this should be stated as part of the theorem's conclusion, and the abstract/introduction should not imply that the exact partition is always recovered in the no-outside-option case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] The column headers are beverage icons that do not render in the text; label each column with its explicit binary encoding and item name.
  2. [Eq. (4)] The z-statistic formula is typeset in a dense, hard-to-parse way. Rewrite it using standard two-proportion z-test notation with n_1, n_2, and pooled variance.
  3. [§7] The text says '20 days in Spring 2025' but later specifies May 20, 2025 to June 10, 2025, which is 22 days. Please make the dates consistent.
  4. [§B.3, proof of Theorem 4.6] The constant C is said to be 'absolute' but the proof requires C>8+8√2; state the explicit condition when the constant is introduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; nest identification is a conditional identifiability theorem, not a fit renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Boost factors are defined from observed choice probabilities (Definition 4.2), and the same-nest implication in Proposition 4.4 is derived from the Nested Logit formula (2), not assumed. Assumption 2 (General Position) is a condition on the unobserved primitives (Mult(N,S) values), and it supplies the converse needed for identification; this is a standard identifiability assumption, not the paper's conclusion stated in disguise. Algorithm 1's proof (Section B.1) is a combinatorial argument using the binary-encoding design and transitivity rules, and Theorem B.1's lower bound constructs two observationally equivalent models. Theorem 4.6 is a Chernoff/union-bound sample-complexity argument; Section C's parameter recovery uses Assumption 3 only to make a linear system nonsingular. There are no load-bearing self-citations (no prior work of these authors is used as the basis of the identification). Caveats that affect strength, not circularity: Theorem 4.5 is conditional on Assumption 2 while the abstract claims 'under any Nested Logit ground truth'; Section D.3 explicitly omits proof details for higher-level nests ('We omit the details'); Section G.2 concedes 'there could definitely be equally sensible and predictive nests not found by our algorithm.' These are correctness/scope caveats, not evidence that the derivation reduces to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core theoretical construction relies on the Nested Logit structural form (Section 4) plus three generic-position assumptions (Assumptions 1–3) and one for the d-level extension (Assumption 4). No free parameters are fitted in the theory; empirical significance thresholds are standard. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1 (Identifiability): lambda_N = 1 if and only if |N|=1
    Restricts model to avoid multiplicity; authors show any Nested Logit can be reparameterized to satisfy it, so it is a normalization rather than a substantive restriction.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 2 (General Position): for each S and distinct nests N,N' not contained in S, Mult(N,S) != Mult(N',S)
    Generic condition excluding exact coincidences of boost multipliers; without it, nests with equal multipliers could not be separated. It is not a property of all Nested Logit models, so the 'any ground truth' wording in the abstract overstates the theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 3 (Non-degeneracy for parameter recovery): log-fraction determinant nonsingular for pairs of nests and assortments
    Used only in Section C to recover v_i and lambda_N; a measure-zero exclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4 (D-level general position): distinguishes distinct nests via sibling-ratio identity
    For the d-level extension in Section D; not needed for the main two-level theorem.
  • domain assumption Nested Logit structural model and outside option (or its absence)
    All theoretical results are conditional on the agent's choices being described by Nested Logit with the given parametric form (Section 4).
  • standard math Regularity of Nested Logit: phi(i,S) >= phi(i,[n]) for i in S subset [n]
    Used in finite-sample proof (Appendix B.3) to lower-bound choice probabilities; standard property of random utility models.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Assortments for Choice Estimation and Nest Identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWQW4I7A

@misc{pith2026260216137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Assortments for Choice Estimation and Nest Identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWQW4I7A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.16137}
}
abstract

What assortments (subsets of items) should be offered, to collect data for estimating a choice model over $n$ total items? We propose a structured, non-adaptive experiment design requiring only $O(\log n)$ distinct assortments, each offered repeatedly, that consistently outperforms randomized and other heuristic designs across an extensive numerical benchmark that estimates multiple different choice models under a variety of (possibly mis-specified) ground truths. We then focus on Nested Logit choice models, which cluster items into "nests" of close substitutes. Whereas existing Nested Logit estimation procedures assume the nests to be known and fixed, we present a new algorithm to identify nests based on collected data, which when used in conjunction with our experiment design, guarantees correct identification of nests under any Nested Logit ground truth. Our experiment design was deployed to collect data from over 70 million users at Dream11, an Indian fantasy sports platform that offers different types of betting contests, with rich substitution patterns between them. We identify nests based on the collected data, which lead to better out-of-sample choice prediction than ex-ante clustering from contest features. Our identified nests are ex-post justifiable to Dream11 management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.16137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example deductions after Experiment 1 in Table 2. “Small” boost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the adjacency matrix 𝐸 during nest identification. White squares indicate 𝐸[𝑖, 𝑗] = 1 (same nest); black squares indicate 𝐸[𝑖, 𝑗] = 0 (different nests); while grey squares indicate 𝐸[𝑖, 𝑗] = null (not yet determined). The state of the adjacency matrix 𝐸 is displayed after processing each of the 6 experimental assortments 𝑆 ∈ S, and after the “One Hop Transitivity” (line (14)) and “Identify Missing Pairs… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparing experiment designs in a mis-specified setting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing experiment de￾signs in a well-specified setting, where we display average RMSEsoft over the 500 Markov Chain ground truths under Markov Chain choice estimation 5.3 Well-Specified Models We now consider well-specified settings, where the ground truth choice fu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparing experiment designs and nest identification algorithms, averaged over the 500 Nested Logit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparing experiment designs and nest identification algorithms, averaged over the 500 Nested Logit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SFWork dataset: comparing models for out-of-sample choice pre￾diction, with data-driven nests in Nested Logit, computed using our nest identification algorithm or that of Benson et al. [2016] Estimated models: MNL, Nested Logit (NL), Markov Chain (MKV) data-driven nest…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dream11 data col￾lected under our experi￾ment design: comparing models for out-of-sample choice prediction, with dif￾ferent ways of identifying nests in Nested Logit number of clusters for prediction. The results are displayed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Illustration of the tree-structure recovery process. Each leaf corresponds to an item. Section D.1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Average RMSEsoft over 500 Exponomial ground truths and Exponomial estimation E Supplement to Section 5 E.1 Details of Mis-specified Instances (supplement to Section 5.2) Berbeglia et al. [2022, §3.1.1] describes 1800 random instances in total, where there are 360 inst…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Average RMSEsoft over 500 MNL ground truths and MNL choice estimation other mis-specified ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Average RMSEsoft over 100 MKV ground truths with 𝑛 = 8 items under MKV estimation, extending the data range to 𝑇 = 140,000 invalidate the sufficient condition used in Theorem 4.6 and eliminate its exact-recovery guarantee. However, such a localized error does not eras…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Evolution of 𝐸 as data increases. For illustration, the sample sizes shown are selected so that the recovered nests appear along the diagonal; in general, the ordering of items is arbitrary and need not align with the ground-truth ordering. close to black-and-white. B…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Screenshots of the Dream11 app, with currency denoted in “Lakhs” (one hundred thousand) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 963–973

    On the Relevance of Irrelevant Alternatives(WWW ’16). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 963–973. doi:10.1145/2872427.2883025 Gerardo Berbeglia, Agustín Garassino, and Gustavo Vulcano

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08405 Jose Blanchet, Guillermo Gallego, and Vineet Goyal

    Optimal Graph Reconstruction by Counting Connected Components in Induced Subgraphs.arXiv preprint2506.08405 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08405 Jose Blanchet, Guillermo Gallego, and Vineet Goyal

    arXiv 2025

  3. [10]

    doi:10.1287/opre.2016.1505 Tudor Bodea, Mark Ferguson, and Laurie Garrow

    A Markov Chain Approximation to Choice Modeling.Operations Research64, 4 (2016), 886–905. doi:10.1287/opre.2016.1505 Tudor Bodea, Mark Ferguson, and Laurie Garrow

    arXiv 2016

  4. [12]

    Average RMSEsoft over 100 MKV ground truths with𝑛= 8items under MKV estimation, extending the data range to𝑇=140,000 invalidate the sufficient condition used in Theorem 4.6 and eliminate its exact-recovery guarantee. However, such a localized error does not erase the global signal: if 𝑖 and 𝑗 each exhibit strong within-group relations with many of the sam...

    2005

  5. [13]

    Xi Chen, Yining Wang, and Yuan Zhou

    Assortment Optimization without Prediction: An End-to-end Framework with Transaction Data.A vailable at SSRN 5280529(2025). Xi Chen, Yining Wang, and Yuan Zhou

    2025

  6. [19]

    Ronald A Fisher

    A Nonparametric Approach to Modeling Choice with Limited Data.Management science59, 2 (2013), 305–322. Ronald A Fisher. 1971.The design of experiments. Springer. Xintong Yu, Will Ma, and Michael Zhao24 Guillermo Gallego and Huseyin Topaloglu

    2013

  7. [23]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05002 David A

    Graph Reconstruction with a Connected Components Oracle.arXiv preprint 2509.05002 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05002 David A. Hensher and William H. Greene

    arXiv 2025

  8. [25]

    doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020

    A Conditional Gradient Approach for Nonparametric Estimation of Mixing Distributions.Management Science8 (2020), 3635–3656. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020. 3555 Article ejournal. A. Gürhan Kök and Marshall L. Fisher

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020 2020

Show all 48 references
  1. [27]

    2411–2461 pages

    Behavioral Foundations of Nested Stochastic Choice and Nested Logit. 2411–2461 pages. doi:10.1086/720399 Jimmy Q Li, Paat Rusmevichientong, Duncan Simester, John N Tsitsiklis, and Spyros I Zoumpoulis

    doi

  2. [29]

    doi:10.1287/opre.2022.0693 Daniel McFadden

    Online Learning for Constrained Assortment Optimization Under the Markov Chain Choice Model.Operations Research73, 1 (2025), 109–138. doi:10.1287/opre.2022.0693 Daniel McFadden

    2025

  3. [31]

    Min-hwan Oh and Garud Iyengar

    Mergers with Differentiated Products: The Case of the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry.RAND Journal of Economics31, 3 (2000), 395–421. Min-hwan Oh and Garud Iyengar

    2000

  4. [32]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2103.13929 Pascal Pons and Matthieu Latapy

    Multinomial Logit Contextual Bandits: Provable Optimality and Practicality.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.13929(2021). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2103.13929 Pascal Pons and Matthieu Latapy

    2021 doi arXiv

  5. [33]

    InComputer and Information Sciences - ISCIS 2005, pInar Yolum, Tunga Güngör, Fikret Gürgen, and Can Özturan (Eds.)

    Computing Communities in Large Networks Using Random Walks. InComputer and Information Sciences - ISCIS 2005, pInar Yolum, Tunga Güngör, Fikret Gürgen, and Can Özturan (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 284–293. William M. Rand

    2005

  6. [35]

    CDlib: a Python Library to Extract, Compare and Evaluate Communities from Complex Networks.Applied Network Science4, 1 (2019),

    2019

  7. [37]

    doi:10.1287/opre

    Dynamic Assortment Optimization with a Multinomial Logit Choice Model and Capacity Constraint.Operations Research58, 6 (2010), 1666–1680. doi:10.1287/opre. 1100.0866 Nihar B Shah, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, Joseph Bradley, Abhay Parekh, Kannan Ramchandran, and Martin J Wainwright

    2010

  8. [38]

    Estimation from pairwise comparisons: Sharp minimax bounds with topology dependence.Journal of Machine Learning Research17, 58 (2016), 1–47. A. Serdar Şimşek and Huseyin Topaloglu

    2016

  9. [40]

    arXiv:2007.00204 [stat.ML] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2007.00204 Kenneth E Train

    Learning an arbitrary mixture of two multinomial logits. arXiv:2007.00204 [stat.ML] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2007.00204 Kenneth E Train. 2009.Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge university press. Garrett van Ryzin and Gustavo Vulcano

    2007 arXiv

  10. [41]

    doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2040 Garrett van Ryzin and Gustavo Vulcano

    A Market Discovery Algorithm to Estimate a General Class of Nonparametric Choice Models.Management Science61, 2 (2015), 281–300. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2040 Garrett van Ryzin and Gustavo Vulcano

    2015

  11. [42]

    doi:10.1287/opre.2016.1559 Gustavo Vulcano, Garrett van Ryzin, and Richard Ratliff

    Technical Note—An Expectation-Maximization Method to Estimate a Rank-Based Choice Model of Demand.Operations Research65, 2 (2017), 396–407. doi:10.1287/opre.2016.1559 Gustavo Vulcano, Garrett van Ryzin, and Richard Ratliff

    2017

  12. [45]

    [2022, §3.1.1] describes 1800 random instances in total, where there are 360 instances for each of 5 different values of𝑇

    AverageRMSE soft over 500 Exponomial ground truths and Exponomial estimation E Supplement to Section 5 E.1 Details of Mis-specified Instances (supplement to Section 5.2) Berbeglia et al. [2022, §3.1.1] describes 1800 random instances in total, where there are 360 instances for...

    2022

  13. [47]

    irrelevant alternative of 𝑖 and 𝑗

    We first explain the high-level difference between our nest identification algorithm and that of Benson et al. [2016]. For a pair of items𝑖,𝑗, our algorithm ends up comparing (see (3)) ˆ𝜙(𝑖,[𝑛]) ˆ𝜙(𝑖,[𝑛])+ ˆ𝜙(𝑗,[𝑛]) to ˆ𝜙(𝑖,𝑆) ˆ𝜙(𝑖,𝑆)+ ˆ𝜙(𝑗,𝑆) ,(18) separatelyfor each experime...

    2016

  14. [48]

    fantasy team

    for more details). This is why the assortments𝑆 in their experiment designS satisfy|𝑆|≤ 3—to avoid other items likeℓ that may be disproportionately more prevalent in{𝑆∈S :𝑆⊇{𝑖,𝑗,𝑘}} than in{𝑆∈S :𝑆⊇{𝑖,𝑗}} . However, we demonstrate that adding this constraint to the experiment d...

    2016

  15. [52]

    doi:10.1007/s41109-019-0165-9 Paat Rusmevichientong, Zuo -Jun Max Shen, and David B. Shmoys

    doi

  16. [1971]

    Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods.J. Amer. Statist. Assoc.66, 336 (1971), 846–850. doi:10.1080/01621459.1971.10482356 Giulio Rossetti, Letizia Milli, and Rémy Cazabet

    1971

  17. [1977]

    Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space9, 3 (1977), 285–344

    On the Formation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space9, 3 (1977), 285–344. doi:10.1068/a090285 Xintong Yu, Will Ma, and Michael Zhao25 Algorithm 3Balanced base-𝑏enumeration (first𝑛vectors) Input...

    1977 doi

  18. [1978]

    Aviv Nevo

    Modelling the choice of residential location.Transportation Research Record673 (1978), 72–77. Aviv Nevo

    1978

  19. [1980]

    Vivek F Farias, Srikanth Jagabathula, and Devavrat Shah

    An Almost Ideal Demand System.American Economic Review70, 3 (1980), 312–326. Vivek F Farias, Srikanth Jagabathula, and Devavrat Shah

    1980

  20. [1989]

    Ningyuan Chen, Andre Augusto Cire, Pin Gao, and Shaoyu Wang

    Efficient Estimation of Nested Logit Models.Journal of Business & Economic Statistics7, 1 (1989), 67–74. Ningyuan Chen, Andre Augusto Cire, Pin Gao, and Shaoyu Wang

    1989

  21. [1995]

    Hadley Black, Arya Mazumdar, Barna Saha, and Yinzhan Xu

    Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium.Econometrica63, 4 (1995), 841–890. Hadley Black, Arya Mazumdar, Barna Saha, and Yinzhan Xu

    1995

  22. [1998]

    doi:10.1016/S0166-218X(98)00070-5 Computational Molecular Biology DAM - CMB Series

    Reconstructing a Hamiltonian cycle by querying the graph: Application to DNA physical mapping.Discrete Applied Mathematics88, 1 (1998), 147–165. doi:10.1016/S0166-218X(98)00070-5 Computational Molecular Biology DAM - CMB Series. Vladimir Grebinski and Gregory Kucherov

    1998 doi

  23. [2000]

    doi:10.1007/s004530010033 Juha Harviainen and Pekka Parviainen

    Optimal Reconstruction of Graphs under the Additive Model.Algorithmica 28, 1 (2000), 104–124. doi:10.1007/s004530010033 Juha Harviainen and Pekka Parviainen

    2000 doi

  24. [2002]

    doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00035-7 Srikanth Jagabathula, Lakshminarayanan Subramanian, and Ashwin Venkataraman

    Specification and estimation of the nested logit model: alternative normalisations.Transportation Research Part B: Methodological36, 1 (2002), 1–17. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00035-7 Srikanth Jagabathula, Lakshminarayanan Subramanian, and Ashwin Venkataraman

    2002 doi

  25. [2005]

    doi:10.1137/S0895480103431071 Aydın Alptekinoğlu and John H

    Learning a Hidden Subgraph.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics18, 4 (2005), 697–712. doi:10.1137/S0895480103431071 Aydın Alptekinoğlu and John H. Semple

    2005 doi

  26. [2007]

    doi:10.1287/opre.1070.0409 F

    Demand estimation and assortment optimization under substitution: Method- ology and application.Operations Research55, 6 (2007), 1001–1021. doi:10.1287/opre.1070.0409 F. S. Koppelman and C. Bhat. 2006.A self instructing course in mode choice modeling: Multinomial and nested lo...

    2007

  27. [2009]

    David Brownstone and Kenneth A

    Data Set—Choice-Based Revenue Management: Data from a Major Hotel Chain.Manufacturing & Service Operations Management11, 2 (2009), 356–361. David Brownstone and Kenneth A. Small

    2009

  28. [2010]

    doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.02.003 Charles J Colbourn

    Optimal query complexity bounds for finding graphs.Artificial Intelligence174, 9 (2010), 551–569. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2010.02.003 Charles J Colbourn. 2010.CRC handbook of combinatorial designs. CRC press. Christopher Conlon and Julie Holland Mortimer

    2010 doi

  29. [2012]

    doi:10.1287/opre.1110.1012 H C W L Williams

    Estimating Primary Demand for Substitutable Products from Sales Transaction Data.Operations Research60, 2 (2012), 313–334. doi:10.1287/opre.1110.1012 H C W L Williams

    2012 arXiv

  30. [2013]

    doi:10.1257/mic.5.4.1 Angus Deaton and John Muellbauer

    Demand Estimation under Incomplete Product Availability.American Economic Journal: Microeconomics5, 4 (2013), 1–30. doi:10.1257/mic.5.4.1 Angus Deaton and John Muellbauer

    2013 doi

  31. [2014]

    Management Science60, 10 (2014), 2583–2601

    Constrained Assortment Optimization for the Nested Logit Model. Management Science60, 10 (2014), 2583–2601. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.1931 Vladimir Grebinski and Gregory Kucherov

    2014

  32. [2015]

    doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2066 Shukai Li, Qi Luo, Zhiyuan Huang, and Cong Shi

    The Value of Field Experiments.Management science61, 7 (2015), 1722–1740. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2066 Shukai Li, Qi Luo, Zhiyuan Huang, and Cong Shi

    2015

  33. [2016]

    doi:10.1287/opre.2015.1459 Ali Aouad and Antoine Désir

    The Exponomial Choice Model: A New Alternative for Assortment and Price Optimization.Operations Research64, 1 (2016), 79–93. doi:10.1287/opre.2015.1459 Ali Aouad and Antoine Désir

    2016

  34. [2017]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00108(2017)

    Assortment optimization under unknown multinomial logit choice models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00108(2017). https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00108 Flavio Chierichetti, Ravi Kumar, and Andrew Tomkins

    2017 arXiv

  35. [2018]

    doi:10.1287/opre.2017.1692 Genichi Taguchi

    Technical Note—An Expectation-Maximization Algorithm to Estimate the Parameters of the Markov Chain Choice Model.Operations Research66, 3 (2018), 748–760. doi:10.1287/opre.2017.1692 Genichi Taguchi. 1986.Introduction to quality engineering: designing quality into products and ...

    2018

  36. [2019]

    doi:10.1287/opre.2018.1832 Noga Alon and Vera Asodi

    MNL-Bandit: A Dynamic Learning Approach to Assortment Selection.Operations Research67, 5 (2019), 1453–1485. doi:10.1287/opre.2018.1832 Noga Alon and Vera Asodi

    2019

  37. [2020]

    Shipra Agrawal, Vashist Avadhanula, Vineet Goyal, and Assaf Zeevi

    Learning Structure in Nested Logit Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.08048(2020). Shipra Agrawal, Vashist Avadhanula, Vineet Goyal, and Assaf Zeevi

    2008 arXiv

  38. [2021]

    doi:10.1287/moor.2021.1133 Wang Chi Cheung and David Simchi-Levi

    Optimal Policy for Dynamic Assortment Planning Under Multinomial Logit Models.Mathematics of Operations Research46, 4 (2021), 1639–1657. doi:10.1287/moor.2021.1133 Wang Chi Cheung and David Simchi-Levi

    2021

  39. [2022]

    doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.4069 Steven Berry, James Levinsohn, and Ariel Pakes

    A Comparative Empirical Study of Discrete Choice Models in Retail Operations.Management Science68, 6 (2022), 4005–4023. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.4069 Steven Berry, James Levinsohn, and Ariel Pakes

    2022

  40. [2025]

    Representing random utility choice models with neural networks.Management Science (2025). M. Ben-Akiva and S.R. Lerman. 1985.Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press. Austin R. Benson, Ravi Kumar, and Andrew Tomkins

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.