Calibrating an Imperfect Auxiliary Predictor for Unobserved No-Purchase Choice

TL;DR

This paper develops calibration methods to improve outside-option probability estimates from biased auxiliary predictors, enabling better market-size estimation and decision-making in purchase choice models.

Contribution

It introduces affine and rank-based calibration techniques that correct biased auxiliary predictions using purchase data, enhancing no-purchase probability estimation and downstream assortment optimization.

Findings

Calibration methods improve no-purchase probability estimates.

Error bounds quantify the impact of predictor quality on decisions.

Numerical experiments demonstrate enhanced estimation and revenue outcomes.

Abstract

Firms typically cannot observe key consumer actions: whether customers buy from a competitor, choose not to buy, or even fully consider the firm's offer. This missing outside-option information makes market-size and preference estimation difficult even in simple multinomial logit (MNL) models, and it is a central obstacle in practice when only transaction data are recorded. Existing approaches often rely on auxiliary market-share, aggregated, or cross-market data. We study a complementary setting in which a black-box auxiliary predictor provides outside-option probabilities, but is potentially biased or miscalibrated because it was trained in a different channel, period, or population, or produced by an external machine-learning system. We develop calibration methods that turn such imperfect predictions into statistically valid no-purchase estimates using purchase-only data from the focal environment. First, under affine miscalibration in logit space, we show that a simple regression identifies outside-option utility parameters and yields consistent recovery of no-purchase probabilities without collecting new labels for no-purchase events. Second, under a weaker nearly monotone condition, we propose a rank-based calibration method and derive finite-sample error bounds that cleanly separate auxiliary-predictor quality from first-stage utility-learning error over observed in-set choices. Our analysis also translates estimation error into downstream decision quality for assortment optimization, quantifying how calibration accuracy affects revenue performance. The bounds provide explicit dependence on predictor alignment and utility-learning error, clarifying when each source dominates. Numerical experiments demonstrate improvements in no-purchase estimation and downstream assortment decisions, and we discuss robust aggregation extensions for combining multiple auxiliary predictors.