Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Optimal Search Segmentation Mechanisms for Online Platform Markets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An online platform that can choose which products to show should display all products to maximize social welfare, but only the top $k^*$ quality products to maximize revenue; the paper proves both under Bertrand competition with…

desk verdict A likely-true top-k revenue theorem with a real proof gap in the dominant-seller case; the rest is solid and the paper deserves engagement. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07489 v1 pith:6UAFIKEM submitted 2019-08-20 cs.GT econ.TH

Zhenzhe Zheng , R. Srikant This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GTecon.TH
keywords searchsegmentationmechanismsonlineplatformmarketsBertrandcompetitionmultinomiallogitdemandrevenuemaximizationsocialwelfarequality-ordermechanismCournot
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 studies an online platform that controls only which products appear in a buyer's search results, while sellers set prices competitively and buyers choose according to multinomial logit demand. It claims that for social welfare, the platform should display every product, but for platform revenue it should display only the top $k^*$ products ranked by quality, where $k^*$ is determined by the full quality vector and computable in linear time. Under Cournot competition, the paper argues, the same quality-threshold form is optimal for both objectives, though welfare maximization there may also omit low-quality products. If correct, the combinatorial problem of choosing a display set from $2^n$ possibilities collapses to checking $n$ quality-ordered prefixes, and a revenue-maximizing interface would never show a lower-quality product while hiding a higher-quality one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equilibrium revenue function written in terms of the outside option's demand, $re(\bar q_0)=\sum_{i\in S}\bar q_i/(1-\bar q_i)+1/(\bar q_0+\sum_{i\in S}\bar q_i)-1$, together with the demand-link function $V(x)$, the unique $v\in(0,1)$ satisfying $v e^{v/(1-v)}=x$. Because $V$ is increasing, a higher-quality candidate product is equivalent to a smaller feasible $\bar q_0$, so the decision of whether and which product to add becomes a one-dimensional optimisation over $\bar q_0$. Quasi-convexity of $re(\bar q_0)$ forces the optimum to an endpoint of the feasible interval, meaning the best choice is either to add nothing or to add the highest-quality unselected product; this endpoint logic is what converts subset choice into quality-ordered prefixes. In the Cournot extension the analogous role is played by the Lambert W function through $w_i=W(e^{\theta_i-1})$, and quasi-convexity of a scalar function $g(w)$ in the proof of Lemma 7 drives the top-$k$ replacement argument.

What would settle it

Construct a Bertrand-MNL instance with $n=4$ products where the top product's equilibrium share satisfies $\bar q_1\ge 0.5$ (e.g., choose the highest quality $\theta_1$ large), compute $re(\bar q_0)$ from Theorem 2 over the feasible interval $[\bar q_0^{\min},\bar q_0^{\max}]$, and check whether any interior stationary point has negative second derivative; if so, quasi-convexity fails and the replacement argument in Theorem 4 no longer goes through. Equivalently, enumerate all $2^n$ subsets for such quality vectors and look for a case where the best revenue set is not a quality-ordered prefix.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that under Bertrand price competition with MNL demand, the equilibrium outcome of any displayed set $S$ can be described by a single outside-option demand $\bar q_0$ solving $\sum_{i\in S} V(\bar q_0 e^{\theta_i-1})=1-\bar q_0$, where $V(x)$ is the unique $v\in(0,1)$ with $v e^{v/(1-v)}=x$. Expressing equilibrium revenue as a function $re(\bar q_0)$, the paper proves it is quasi-convex over the feasible interval, so its maximum over choices of which product to add occurs at an endpoint: either add no product or add the highest-quality available one. Iterating this replacement argument yields Theorem 4: revenue maximization displays the top $k^*$ products, and $k^*$ is found in linear time by evaluating the revenue of each quality-ordered prefix. For social welfare in the Bertrand game, the paper proves the welfare function decreases in $\bar q_0$, so adding any product improves welfare and all products should be displayed. The Cournot results use the same top-$k$ structure, now mediated by Lambert-W weights $w_i=W(e^{\theta_i-1})$, with Theorems 6 and 7.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on assuming that the equilibrium revenue curve is quasi-convex (no interior valley) over the whole feasible range of outside-option demand, including the case where one seller commands at least half the market; the paper supports this case in Appendix H with graphical intersection and inequality checks rather than a fully algebraic derivation, and if the curve can dip then replacing a lower-quality displayed product with a higher-quality hidden one might not increase revenue.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A revenue-maximizing platform can determine its display set in $O(n)$ time: compute the equilibrium revenue for each prefix $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ and pick the best $k^*$.
  • No display set that maximizes revenue can skip a high-quality product in favor of a lower-quality one; the optimal display is always a quality-ordered prefix.
  • For social welfare under Bertrand competition, search segmentation never helps: hiding any product can only reduce total welfare, so the platform should show all sellers.
  • Under Cournot competition, welfare maximization may hide some low-quality products, but the displayed set remains a quality-ordered prefix rather than an arbitrary subset.
  • Because quality determines inclusion, sellers have a long-run incentive to improve product quality in order to enter the displayed set, which increases equilibrium revenue and welfare.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same quality-prefix logic suggests a testable design rule for real platforms using price competition: when the objective is take-rate or commission revenue, ranking or displaying by quality alone should beat display rules based on predicted revenue scores, because prices already incorporate surplus extraction.
  • If quasi-convexity fails for some quality vector with a dominant seller, the optimal display might require checking non-prefix sets; a natural computational experiment is to enumerate all subsets for $n\le 8$ and compare the best subset against the top-$k^*$ rule across random quality vectors, especially with large $\theta_1$.
  • The welfare/revenue divergence has a regulatory reading: a revenue-maximizing platform will systematically hide low-quality sellers, while a surplus-maximizing regulator would want them shown; comparing displayed sets to quality rankings could reveal which objective the platform is optimizing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies a platform's search segmentation problem under a discriminatory control model: the platform chooses which products to display to a representative buyer, while sellers set prices and engage in Bertrand competition. Buyer demand follows the multinomial logit (MNL) choice model. The authors prove that for social welfare maximization, displaying all products is optimal; for revenue maximization, the optimal mechanism is to display the top k* products by quality, where k* is computable in linear time. They extend the analysis to Cournot competition, where both objectives lead to top-k threshold mechanisms. The results rely on a closed-form characterization of the Bertrand equilibrium using a V function related to the Lambert W function, and on quasi-convexity of equilibrium revenue as a function of the outside-option demand.

Significance. If the central theorems were fully established, the paper would make a valuable contribution: it reduces a combinatorial display-optimization problem with an exponential search space to a linear-time threshold rule and gives a clean economic interpretation via the quality-order mechanism. The equilibrium characterization and the social-welfare result under Bertrand are solid in structure, and the Cournot extension broadens the scope. The paper is transparent about its assumptions and clearly indicates where the q1<0.5 condition is relaxed. However, the revenue-maximization theorem in the dominant-seller regime (q1>=0.5) rests on proof steps in Appendix H that are either asserted from figures or invoke lemmas outside their stated domain. Until those steps are supplied with complete analytic arguments, the headline revenue result is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix H, Lemma 9] In the proof of Lemma 9, after the derivative expression around Eq. (39), the authors assert that at q0 = q0^min, "the demands satisfy the relation: 2 x q1 = 1 - q0^min". This equality holds only when the two displayed products have identical demand, i.e., identical quality. For a generic quality vector, q2 differs from q1, and the subsequent derivation of re'(q0^min) = A(-3 q0^min - (q0^min)^3) does not follow. Because this endpoint evaluation is the first step toward proving quasi-convexity of the revenue function for the k* = 2 case, the proof of Lemma 9 is invalid as written.
  2. [Appendix H, Lemmas 9-10 and Theorem 9] The appendix establishes load-bearing facts by appeal to figures rather than analytic derivation: Lemma 9 counts intersections of q1(q0) and V(q0 exp(theta1-1)) by "observing" Figure 4; Lemma 10 asserts hbar(qi) > 0 for 0 <= qi < 0.5 with a plot in Figure 5; and Theorem 9 asserts W(x) >= 2x/(e+x) on [exp(-1), 2 exp(2)] after "tedious calculations" supported only by Figure 6. These inequalities and root counts are necessary for quasi-convexity in the dominant-seller regime and for excluding the interval [q0*, q0^max]. The authors should replace each of these graphical arguments with a complete analytic proof.
  3. [Appendix H, Theorem 9, Case B] In Case B, the authors construct a virtual product j' and state that Lemma 5 shows the corresponding revenue function reb(q0) is quasi-convex on [q0^min', q0^max'], and then use this statement on [q0*, q0^max']. Lemma 5's own hypothesis is q1 < 0.5. On [q0*, q0^max'], however, q0 >= q0*, so q1 = V(q0 exp(theta1-1)) >= 0.5; the interval is precisely the regime excluded by Lemma 5. Thus a lemma is invoked outside its stated domain. The proof must either extend the quasi-convexity statement to the q1 >= 0.5 regime or provide a different argument for this interval.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.2, design rationale] The bullet list says "re(q0) is quasi-concave in q0" but the surrounding text and Lemma 5 state "quasi-convex"; this inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Section 2] The sentence introducing the ordering says "non-decreasing order" but the displayed inequality is theta1 >= theta2 >= ... >= thetan, which is non-increasing. The terminology should match the inequality.
  3. [Appendix D, proof of Lemma 3] The proof relies on two properties of f(q) (f(q)+f(1-q)=1 and the inequalities f(q) <= q and f(q) <= f2(q)) that are stated after plotting Figure 2 but not proved. These properties are used to bound the expression in (31); provide analytic proofs for completeness.
  4. [Appendix F, proof of Lemma 5] The property that g(q) is decreasing on [0,0.5] with g(0)=1 and g(0.5)=-1/3 is asserted with "We can verify this property by showing the first derivative g'(q) is negative" but the derivative computation is not shown. Include the computation or a reference.
  5. [Lemma 9 proof] The closed-form expression for q1(q0) (the root of re'(q0)=0) is typeset ambiguously: the denominator 2(q0+2) appears to multiply only the square-root term. Clarify that it multiplies the entire right-hand side.
  6. [Lemma 2] The proof claims that G(p) is an ordinal potential and that best-response dynamics converge in a finite number of steps because the potential has a finite value. The ordinal potential property (30) is asserted without proof, and a strictly increasing sequence in a finite-valued potential need not be finite in a continuous strategy space. A rigorous convergence argument is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the top-k quality-order results are derived from the model, with no fitted inputs, no self-citation chains, and no target result assumed as an input.

full rationale

The paper derives its central claims from the MNL/Bertrand model rather than from its own prior conclusions. The optimal-display theorems (Theorems 3, 4, 6, 7) are obtained by analyzing the equilibrium revenue and welfare functions, using the Lambert-W function and the equilibrium constraint, with no calibrated or fitted parameters that are later relabeled as predictions. Theorem 1, the existence and uniqueness of the Bertrand equilibrium, is cited from Gallego et al. [21], which is external support and not a self-citation. The Appendix H proof of the dominant-seller case relies on figure-based verifications ('we can observe from the figure') and on Lemma 5 being invoked on an interval where its q1<0.5 hypothesis may fail; these are proof-rigor and correctness concerns, not circularity, because they do not amount to defining the top-k result in terms of itself or fitting a quantity and then predicting that same quantity. No self-definitional, fitted-input, self-citation-load-bearing, or renaming pattern is present in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters are present: product qualities are exogenously given inputs, and the threshold k* is computed from them, not fitted to data. No new physical or economic entities are postulated. The auxiliary functions V and g are analytical tools, not entities requiring independent empirical evidence.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption MNL demand: each buyer's Gumbel noise is i.i.d., so purchase probabilities follow the softmax form in Eq. (1).
    The entire demand system and the social welfare and revenue functions are built on this assumption in Section 2. If buyers do not follow the MNL model, the results are not claimed to hold.
  • domain assumption Bertrand-Nash equilibrium exists, is unique, and is characterized by first-order conditions, cited from Gallego et al. [21].
    Used to derive equilibrium prices and demands in Eqs. (6) through (9). The paper relies on the cited theorem rather than proving this equilibrium property from first principles.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasi-convexity of the revenue function in the q1>=0.5 regime is established by graphical intersection-count arguments in Appendix H.
    Lemma 9 and Theorem 9 assert root-count and inequality facts based on Figures 4 and 6 rather than providing complete analytic proofs. This is load-bearing for the revenue-maximizing top-k theorem.
  • domain assumption Rosen's theorem guarantees existence and uniqueness of the Cournot equilibrium.
    Used in Section 5 to derive the Cournot equilibrium from concave game structure, citing Rosen [33].
  • domain assumption One representative buyer and no seller capacity constraints.
    The model abstracts away multiple heterogeneous buyers and capacity limits, as discussed in Section 1. The formulas are not general to queueing or capacity-constrained markets.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Search Segmentation Mechanisms for Online Platform Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6UAFIKEM

@misc{pith2026190807489,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Search Segmentation Mechanisms for Online Platform Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6UAFIKEM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07489}
}
read the original abstract

Online platforms, such as Airbnb, hotels.com, Amazon, Uber and Lyft, can control and optimize many aspects of product search to improve the efficiency of marketplaces. Here we focus on a common model, called the discriminatory control model, where the platform chooses to display a subset of sellers who sell products at prices determined by the market and a buyer is interested in buying a single product from one of the sellers. Under the commonly-used model for single product selection by a buyer, called the multinomial logit model, and the Bertrand game model for competition among sellers, we show the following result: to maximize social welfare, the optimal strategy for the platform is to display all products; however, to maximize revenue, the optimal strategy is to only display a subset of the products whose qualities are above a certain threshold. We extend our results to Cournot competition model, and show that the optimal search segmentation mechanisms for both social welfare maximization and revenue maximization also have simple threshold structures. The threshold in each case depends on the quality of all products, the platform's objective and seller's competition model, and can be computed in linear time in the number of products.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07489 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. re(¯q0) is a quasi-convex revenue function for the possible product set to display when the product 1 has been selected. re(¯q min 0 ) is the revenue obtained by displaying S ∗ = {1, 2}, re(¯q middle 0 ) is the revenue from showing S ∗ = {1, n}, and re(¯q max 0 ) is the revenue of displaying S ∗ = {1}. the following equilibrium constraint: 1 − q¯0 = X i∈S q¯i + xj × q¯j = X i∈S q¯i + xj × V (¯q0 × exp(θj − 1)). (16)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The function f(q) is sigmoidal over the interval [0, 1], and is convex in [0, 0.5] and concave in [0.5, 1]. To prove (31) is non-positive, we consider the following optimization problem: MaximizeX i∈S f(¯qi), Subject to X i∈S q¯i = 1, and show the optimal objecitve is always no more than 1, i.e., P i∈S f(¯qi) ≤ 1 by separately considering the following two cases: P • When |S| = 2, according to the first property of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The function g(¯q) has one critical property: for any pair of ¯qi and ¯qj with 0.5 ≥ q¯i ≥ q¯j ≥ 0, the relation −1/3 ≤ g(¯qi) ≤ g(¯qj ) ≤ 1 holds. E Proof for Lemma 4 Proof. Suppose the displayed product set S does not contain the product with the highest quality. We denote the product with the highest quality in S as i ∗ , i.e., ¯qi ∗ ≥ q¯i , ∀i ∈ S. We only need to show that the revenue does not decrease if we re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The possible intersections of functions ¯q1(¯q0) and V (¯q0 × exp(θ1 − 1)) with different quality parameter θ1. Similarly, when ¯q0 is equal to ¯q max 0 , we have ¯q1 = 1 − q¯ max 0 and re0 (¯q max 0 ) = A × (1 − 2 × q¯ max 0 ). Based on the definition of V (x) in (8),…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The graph of function h¯(¯qi), which shows that h¯(¯qi) ≥ 0 for all ¯qi ≤ 0.5. It is tedious but one can verify h¯(¯qi) > 0 for all 0 ≤ q¯i < 0.5, and a graph of this function is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The graph of functions W(x) and 2×x e+x , which shows that W(x) ≥ 2×x e+x for all exp(−1) ≤ x ≤ 2 × exp(2). We next consider the other interval ¯q0 ∈ [¯q min 0 , q¯ ∗ 0 ], and show that it is still optimal to display the third product given the selected product set S =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abolhassani, M

    M. Abolhassani, M. H. Bateni, M. Hajiaghayi, H. Mahini, and A. Sawant. Network cournot competition. In WINE, pages 15–29, 2014. 18 Z. Zheng and R. Srikant

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Aksoy-Pierson, G

    M. Aksoy-Pierson, G. Allon, and A. Federgruen. Price competition under mixed multinomial logit demand functions. Management Science, 59(8):1817–1835, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Alijani, S

    R. Alijani, S. Banerjee, S. Gollapudi, K. Kollias, and K. Munagala. The segmentation-thickness tradeoff in online marketplaces. In SIGMETRICS, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    S. P. Anderson, A. De Palma, and J.-F. Thisse. Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. MIT press, 1992

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Arnosti, R

    N. Arnosti, R. Johari, and Y. Kanoria. Managing congestion in decentralized matching markets. In EC, pages 451–451, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Banerjee, S

    S. Banerjee, S. Gollapudi, K. Kollias, and K. Munagala. Segmenting two-sided markets. In WWW, pages 63–72, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Bimpikis, S

    K. Bimpikis, S. Ehsani, and R. Ilkili¸ c. Cournot competition in networked markets. Management Science, 65(6):2467–2481, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Birge, O

    J. Birge, O. Candogan, H. Chen, and D. Saban. Optimal commissions and sub- scriptions in networked markets. In EC, pages 613–614, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Boyd and L

    S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex optimization. Cambridge university press, 2004

    2004

  2. [10]

    Cannon and L

    S. Cannon and L. H. Summers. How uber and the sharing economy can win over regulators. Harvard business review, 13(10):24–28, 2014

    2014

  3. [11]

    Cardell and F

    N. Cardell and F. C. Dunbar. Measuring the societal impacts of automobile down- sizing. Transportation Research Part A: General, 14(5):423 – 434, 1980

    1980

  4. [12]

    L. Chen, A. Mislove, and C. Wilson. Peeking beneath the hood of uber. In IMC, pages 495–508, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    L. Chen, A. Mislove, and C. Wilson. An empirical analysis of algorithmic pricing on amazon marketplace. In WWW, pages 1339–1349, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey, and D. E. Knuth. On the lambertw function. Advances in Computational Mathematics , 5(1):329–359, 1996

    1996

  7. [15]

    A. F. Daughety. Cournot oligopoly: characterization and applications . Cambridge university press, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    L. Dong, P. Kouvelis, and Z. Tian. Dynamic pricing and inventory control of substitute products. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 11(2):317– 339, 2009

    2009

  9. [17]

    P. C. Evans and A. Gawer. The rise of the platform enterprise: a global survey. 2016

    2016

  10. [18]

    Farahat, W

    A. Farahat, W. T. Huh, and H. Li. On the relationship between quantity precom- mitment and cournot games. Operations Research, 67(1):109–122, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Freund and R

    Y. Freund and R. E. Schapire. Adaptive game playing using multiplicative weights. Games and Economic Behavior , 29(1):79 – 103, 1999

    1999

  12. [20]

    Fudenberg, F

    D. Fudenberg, F. Drew, D. K. Levine, and D. K. Levine. The theory of learning in games, volume 2. MIT press, 1998

    1998

  13. [21]

    Gallego, W

    G. Gallego, W. T. Huh, W. Kang, and R. Phillips. Price competition with the attraction demand model: Existence of unique equilibrium and its stability. Man- ufacturing & Service Operations Management , 8(4):359–375, 2006

    2006

  14. [22]

    Grbovic and H

    M. Grbovic and H. Cheng. Real-time personalization using embeddings for search ranking at airbnb. In KDD, pages 311–320, 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    P. M. Guadagni and J. D. C. Little. A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science, 2(3):203–238, 1983

    1983

  16. [24]

    Hanson and K

    W. Hanson and K. Martin. Optimizing multinomial logit profit functions. Man- agement Science, 42(7):992–1003, 1996

    1996

  17. [25]

    Kanoria and D

    Y. Kanoria and D. Saban. Facilitating the search for partners on matching plat- forms: Restricting agent actions. In EC, pages 117–117, 2017. Optimal Search Segmentation Mechanisms for Online Platform Markets 19

    2017

  18. [26]

    D. M. Kreps and J. A. Scheinkman. Quantity precommitment and bertrand com- petition yield cournot outcomes. The Bell Journal of Economics , 14(2):326–337, 1983

    1983

  19. [27]

    W. Lin, J. Z. F. Pang, E. Bitar, and A. Wierman. Networked cournot competition in platform markets: Access control and efficiency loss. In CDC, pages 4606–4611, 2017

    2017

  20. [28]

    McFadden

    D. McFadden. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In P. Zarembka, editor, Frontiers in Econometrics , pages 105–142. Academic Press New York, New York, NY, USA, 1974

    1974

  21. [29]

    McFadden

    D. McFadden. The choice theory approach to market research. Marketing Science, 5(4):275–297, 1986

    1986

  22. [30]

    P. R. Milgrom and S. Tadelis. How artificial intelligence and machine learning can impact market design. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Monderer and L

    D. Monderer and L. S. Shapley. Potential games. Games and Economic Behavior , 14(1):124 – 143, 1996

    1996

  24. [32]

    J. Z. F. Pang, H. Fu, W. I. Lee, and A. Wierman. The efficiency of open access in platforms for networked cournot markets. In INFOCOM, pages 1–9, 2017

    2017

  25. [33]

    J. B. Rosen. Existence and uniqueness of equilibrium points for concave n-person games. Econometrica, 33(3):520–534, 1965

    1965

  26. [34]

    Rusmevichientong, D

    P. Rusmevichientong, D. Shmoys, C. Tong, and H. Topaloglu. Assortment op- timization under the multinomial logit model with random choice parameters. Production and Operations Management, 23(11):2023–2039, 2014

    2023

  27. [35]

    J. S. Shamma and G. Arslan. Unified convergence proofs of continuous-time ficti- tious play. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , 49(7):1137–1141, 2004

    2004

  28. [36]

    Song and Z

    J.-S. Song and Z. Xue. Demand management and inventory control for substi- tutable products. Working paper, 2007

    2007

  29. [37]

    Talluri and G

    K. Talluri and G. van Ryzin. Revenue management under a general discrete choice model of consumer behavior. Management Science, 50(1):15–33, 2004

    2004

  30. [38]

    X. Vives. Oligopoly pricing: old ideas and new tools . MIT press, 2001

    2001

  31. [39]

    H. C. W. L. Williams. On the formation of travel demand models and economic evaluation measures of user benefit. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 9(3):285–344, 1977. A Monopolistic Market In this section, we consider an online marketplace in the full control model...

    1977

  32. [40]

    We next show that it is not necessary to consider the interval [¯q∗ 0, ¯qmax 0 ] under the assumption of k∗ = 3

    This threshold ¯q∗ 0 separates the range [¯qmin 0 , ¯qmax 0 ] into two intervals: [¯qmin 0 , ¯q∗ 0] and [¯q∗ 0, ¯qmax 0 ]. We next show that it is not necessary to consider the interval [¯q∗ 0, ¯qmax 0 ] under the assumption of k∗ = 3. We prove this by showing that the revenue...

  33. [41]

    To provereb(¯qmax 0 )≥reb(¯q∗ 0), we only need to show that W (exp(θ1− 1))≥ 2 exp(2−θ1) + 1, ∀θ1≥ 0

    = ¯q1 1− ¯q1 + 1 ¯q∗ 0 + ¯q1 − 1 = 2 2× ¯q∗ 0 + 1 = 2 exp(2−θ1) + 1. To provereb(¯qmax 0 )≥reb(¯q∗ 0), we only need to show that W (exp(θ1− 1))≥ 2 exp(2−θ1) + 1, ∀θ1≥ 0. We introduce an auxiliary notation x ≜ exp(θ1− 1), and express the above inequality as W (x)≥ 2×x e +x, ∀x≥...

  34. [42]

    We then have re(¯q0)≤ re(¯qmin 0 ) for ¯q0 ∈ [ ¯qmin 0 , ¯q∗ 0 ] , meaning that it is optimal to select the third product in this case

    cannot be the maximum value of re(¯q0) for ¯q0 ∈ [ ¯qmin 0 , ¯q∗ 0 ] , because otherwise the cardinality of the optimal product set would be 1 due to the previous discussion. We then have re(¯q0)≤ re(¯qmin 0 ) for ¯q0 ∈ [ ¯qmin 0 , ¯q∗ 0 ] , meaning that it is optimal to selec...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.