Papers for

pricing strategy teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

AI decision model shows bias sensitivity despite good accuracy

Are AI Decision Models Biased? A Case Study of Jev

Abstract: Do AI models designed for fast, structured decisions exhibit the cognitive and social biases observed in human judgment? We evaluate Jev, a model described as a System One decision-maker, using 41,500 responses across cognitive reflection tasks, five classical cognitive-bias paradigms, and a pricing experiment testing ethnic and gender bias. At the level of selected answers, the results are largely encouraging. We confirm previous findings that Jev performs extremely well on cognitive reflection problems. We also observe that it generally avoids the characteristic choice patterns associated with several well-documented human biases, and exhibits only small differences among demographic groups in the tested pricing scenario. However, this apparent robustness conceals important vulnerabilities. Its judgments are sensitive to irrelevant numerical information and the ordering of response options. Moreover, several cognitive-bias manipulations substantially affect returned probabilities even when selected answers remain unchanged. Most strikingly, Jev answers a well-known probability problem correctly in every response but violates the same underlying probability rule in every response to an adapted version. We investigate this discrepancy using 15,000 additional responses across 30 conjunction tasks. Jev violates the rule in 54\% of responses, with accuracy varying dramatically across formulations and answer orders. These findings suggest that evaluating decision models solely on familiar benchmarks and selected answers may substantially overstate their reliability in practical applications. They also identify vulnerabilities for developers to address and practical considerations for users integrating such models into automated decision-making systems.

Wed 14 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
This paper looks at Jev, an AI model designed to make quick decisions, to see if it has the same kinds of thinking mistakes humans do. While Jev performs well on some common tests and mostly avoids known human biases, it can still be tricked by irrelevant numbers or how answers are ordered. In one classic probability problem, it answers correctly, but when the problem is changed slightly, it makes mistakes often. The study suggests that just checking AI models with standard tests might not be enough to trust them fully in real-world decisions.
Open → 2610.19619v1

Online pricing strategy adapts for better trade outcomes in multilateral markets

Support-Dependent Regret Rates for Profit Maximization in Multilateral Trade

Abstract: We study online profit maximization in multilateral trade, a setting that generalizes both dynamic pricing and bilateral trade. At each round, an intermediary posts prices to buyers and offers payments to sellers; trade occurs only if every agent accepts. We consider valuations drawn from an unknown joint distribution, allowing arbitrary correlation across agents, under the assumption that each agent's marginal valuation distribution has unknown support of size at most $K$. For constant dimension $d$, we design an algorithm with regret $\widetilde O(\sqrt{K^dT})$. This extends optimal support-dependent guarantees for one-dimensional dynamic pricing to the multidimensional setting of multilateral trade. At the core of our approach is a normalized zooming procedure that adapts to the local probability of trade, avoiding the excessive refinement of nearly flat regions that can arise with standard zooming.

Tue 6 OctComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
Imagine an online marketplace where a middleman sets prices for buyers and offers payments to sellers, but a trade only happens if everyone agrees. The paper studies how to set these prices and payments when the values buyers and sellers have are unknown and possibly linked to each other. The authors created an algorithm that learns over time to make better deals by focusing on likely trade situations and ignoring less important ones. This helps improve profits by carefully adapting to the complexity and uncertainty of the market.
Open → 2610.08611v1

Improved bounds on losses from simple selling methods

Improved Revenue Guarantees for Selling Separately and Bundling

Abstract: We study how much revenue a seller can lose by restricting attention to selling separately or grand bundling, in the setting of a single additive buyer with independent item values. Although revenue-optimal mechanisms can require lotteries and infinite menus, Babaioff, Immorlica, Lucier, and Weinberg showed that the better of these two simple formats always achieves a constant fraction of optimal revenue. We prove that $\mathrm{OPT} \le 3.52 \max\{\mathrm{SREV}, \mathrm{BREV}\}$, where $\mathrm{SREV}$ and $\mathrm{BREV}$ are the optimal revenues from selling separately and grand bundling, respectively. This improves the previous best-known approximation factor of $5.2$ due to Ma and Simchi-Levi and narrows the gap to the known lower bound of $2$.

Thu 24 SeptComputer Science and Game Theory
The gist
Many sellers want to make the most money when selling items to buyers, but the best methods can be very complicated. The paper looks at two simple ways to sell: selling items one by one or selling all items together as a bundle. The authors show that using the better of these two simple ways will get at least about one-third of the maximum possible money a seller could get. This improves previous estimates and helps us better understand how much money sellers lose by sticking to simpler methods.
Open → 2609.28873v1