Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2512.22864

Computing Nash equilibria for product design based on hierarchical Bayesian mixed logit models

Abstract

Despite a substantial body of theoretical and empirical research in the fields of conjoint and discrete choice analysis as well as product line optimization, relatively few papers focused on the simulation of subsequent competitive dynamics employing non-cooperative game theory. Only a fraction of the existing frameworks explored competition on both product price and design, none of which used fully Bayesian choice models for simulation. Most crucially, no one has yet assessed the choice models' ability to uncover the true equilibria, let alone under different types of choice behavior. Our analysis of thousands of Nash equilibria, derived in full and numerically exact on the basis of real prices and costs, provides evidence that the capability of state-of-the-art mixed logit models to reveal the true Nash equilibria seems to be primarily contingent upon the type of choice behavior (probabilistic versus deterministic), regardless of the number of competing firms, offered products and features in the market, as well as the degree of preference heterogeneity and disturbance. Generally, the highest equilibrium recovery is achieved when applying a deterministic choice rule to estimated preferences given deterministic choice behavior in reality. It is especially in the latter setting that incorporating Bayesian (hyper)parameter uncertainty further enhances the detection rate compared to posterior means. Additionally, we investigate the influence of the above factors on other equilibrium characteristics such as product (line) differentiation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jan H. R. Dressler, Peter Kurz, Winfried J. Steiner. 2025-12-28. Computing Nash equilibria for product design based on hierarchical Bayesian mixed logit models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22864

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Difference-in-Differences with Unpoolable Data

Difference-in-differences (DID) is commonly used to estimate treatment effects but is infeasible in settings where data are unpoolable due to privacy concerns or legal restrictions on data sharing, particularly across jurisdictions. In this study, we identify and relax the assumption of data poolability in DID estimation. We propose an innovative approach to estimate DID with unpoolable data (UN-DID) which can accommodate covariates, multiple groups, and staggered adoption. Through analytical proofs and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that UN-DID and conventional DID estimates of the average treatment effect and standard errors are equal and unbiased in settings without covariates. With covariates, both methods produce estimates that are unbiased, equivalent, and converge to the true value. The estimates differ slightly but the statistical inference and substantive conclusions remain the same. Two empirical examples with real-world data further underscore UN-DID's utility. The UN-DID method allows the estimation of cross-jurisdictional treatment effects with unpoolable data, enabling better counterfactuals to be used and new research questions to be answered.

econ.EM

The Promise of Time-Series Foundation Models for Agricultural Forecasting: Evidence from Commodity Prices

Forecasting agricultural markets remains challenging due to nonlinear dynamics, structural breaks, and sparse data. A long-standing belief holds that simple time-series methods outperform more advanced alternatives. This paper provides the first systematic evidence that this belief no longer holds with modern time-series foundation models (TSFMs). Using USDA ERS monthly commodity price data from 1997-2025, we evaluate 17 forecasting approaches across four model classes, including traditional time-series, machine learning, deep learning, and five state-of-the-art TSFMs (Chronos, Chronos-2, TimesFM 2.5, Time-MoE, Moirai-2), and construct annual marketing year price predictions to compare with USDA's futures-based season-average price (SAP) forecasts. We show that zero-shot foundation models consistently outperform traditional time-series methods, machine learning, and deep learning architectures trained from scratch in both monthly and annual forecasting. Furthermore, foundation models remarkably outperform USDA's futures-based forecasts on three of four major commodities despite USDA's information advantage from forward-looking futures markets. Time-MoE delivers the largest accuracy gains, achieving 54.9% improvement on wheat and 18.5% improvement on corn relative to USDA ERS benchmarks on recent data (2017-2024 excluding COVID). These results point to a paradigm shift in agricultural forecasting.

econ.EM

Testing for Monotone Equilibrium Strategies in Games of Incomplete Information

This paper develops a unified framework for testing monotonicity of Bayesian Nash equilibrium strategies in unobserved types in games of incomplete information. We show that, under symmetric independent private types, monotonicity of differentiable equilibrium strategies is equivalent to monotonicity of a quasi-inverse strategy identified from observed actions. This allows the problem to be reformulated as testing a countable set of moment inequalities involving unconditional expectations. We propose a Cramer-von Mises-type statistic with bootstrap critical values. The method accommodates covariates and game heterogeneity. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate finite-sample performance, and an application to procurement auctions illustrates cartel detection.

econ.EM