An official website of the United States government
There has been substantial recent concern that pricing algorithms might learn to ``collude.'' Supra-competitive prices can emerge as a Nash equilibrium of repeated pricing games, in which sellers play strategies which threaten to punish their competitors who refuse to support high prices, and these strategies can be automatically learned. In fact, a standard economic intuition is that supra-competitive prices emerge from either the use of threats, or a failure of one party to optimize their payoff. Is this intuition correct? Would preventing threats in algorithmic decision-making prevent supra-competitive prices when sellers are optimizing for their own revenue? No. We show that supra-competitive prices can emerge even when both players are using algorithms which do not encode threats, and which optimize for their own revenue. We study sequential pricing games in which a first mover deploys an algorithm and then a second mover optimizes within the resulting environment. We show that if the first mover deploys any algorithm with a no-regret guarantee, and then the second mover even approximately optimizes within this now static environment, monopoly-like prices arise. The result holds for any no-regret learning algorithm deployed by the first mover and for any pricing policy of the second mover that obtains them profit at least as high as a random pricing would -- and hence the result applies even when the second mover is optimizing only within a space of non-responsive pricing distributions which are incapable of encoding threats. In fact, there exists a set of strategies, neither of which explicitly encode threats that form a Nash equilibrium of the simultaneous pricing game in algorithm space, and lead to near monopoly prices. This suggests that the definition of ``algorithmic collusion'' may need to be expanded, to include strategies without explicitly encoded threats.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on April 11, 2026
Non-stochastic Budgeted Online Pricing with Semi-Bandit Feedback
We consider a general non-stochastic online pricing bandit setting in a procurement scenario where a buyer with a budget wants to procure items from a fixed set of sellers to maximize the buyer's reward by dynamically offering purchasing prices to the sellers, where the sellers' costs and values at each time period can change arbitrarily and the sellers determine whether to accept the offered prices to sell the items. This setting models online pricing scenarios of procuring resources or services in multi-agent systems. We first consider the offline setting when sellers' costs and values are known in advance and investigate the best fixed-price policy in hindsight. We show that it has a tight approximation guarantee with respect to the offline optimal solutions. In the general online setting, we propose an online pricing policy, Granularity-based Pricing (GAP), which exploits underlying side-information from the feedback graph when the budget is given as the input. We show that GAP achieves an upper bound of O(n{v_{max}}{c_{min}}sqrt{B/c_{min}}ln B) on the alpha-regret where n, v_{max}, c_{min}, and B are the number, the maximum value, the minimum cost of sellers, and the budget, respectively. We then extend it to the unknown budget case by developing a variant of GAP, namely Doubling-GAP, and show its alpha-regret is at most O(n{v_{max}}{c_{min}}sqrt{B/c_{min}}ln2 B). We also provide an alpha-regret lower bound Omega(v_{max}sqrt{Bn/c_{min}}) of any online policy that is tight up to sub-linear terms. We conduct simulation experiments to show that the proposed policy outperforms the baseline algorithms.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10611389
- Publisher / Repository:
- AAAI
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Volume:
- 39
- Issue:
- 18
- ISSN:
- 2159-5399
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 18978 to 18986
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Meka, Raghu (Ed.)There has been substantial recent concern that automated pricing algorithms might learn to collude Supra-competitive prices can emerge as a Nash equilibrium of repeated pricing games, in which sellers play strategies which threaten to punish their competitors if they ever defect from a set of supra-competitive prices, and these strategies can be automatically learned. But threats are anti-competitive on their face. In fact, a standard economic intuition is that supra-competitive prices emerge from either the use of threats, or a failure of one party to correctly optimize their payoff. Is this intuition correct? Would explicitly preventing threats in algorithmic decision-making prevent supra-competitive prices when sellers are optimizing for their own revenue? No. We show that supra-competitive prices can robustly emerge even when both players are using algorithms which do not explicitly encode threats, and which optimize for their own revenue. Since deploying an algorithm is a form of commitment, we study sequential Bertrand pricing games (and a continuous variant) in which a first mover deploys an algorithm and then a second mover optimizes within the resulting environment. We show that if the first mover deploys any algorithm with a no-regret guarantee, and then the second mover even approximately optimizes within this now static environment, monopoly-like prices arise. The result holds for any no-regret learning algorithm deployed by the first mover and for any pricing policy of the second mover that obtains them profit at least as high as a random pricing would - and hence the result applies even when the second mover is optimizing only within a space of non-responsive pricing distributions which are incapable of encoding threats. In fact, there exists a set of strategies, neither of which explicitly encode threats that form a Nash equilibrium of the simultaneous pricing game in algorithm space, and lead to near monopoly prices. This suggests that the definition of algorithmic collusion; may need to be expanded, to include strategies without explicitly encoded threats.more » « less
-
In recent decades, the design of budget feasible mechanisms for a wide range of procurement auction settings has received significant attention in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) community. These procurement auction settings have practical applications in various domains such as federated learning, crowdsensing, edge computing, and resource allocation. In a basic procurement auction setting of these domains, a buyer with a limited budget is tasked with procuring items (\eg, goods or services) from strategic sellers, who have private information on the true costs of their items and incentives to misrepresent their items' true costs. The primary goal of budget feasible mechanisms is to elicit the true costs from sellers and determine items to procure from sellers to maximize the buyer valuation function for the items and ensure that the total payment to the sellers is no more than the budget. In this survey, we provide a comprehensive overview of key procurement auction settings and results of budget feasible mechanisms. We provide several promising future research directions.more » « less
-
Online pricing has been the focus of extensive research in recent years, particularly in the context of selling an item to sequentially arriving users. However, what if a provider wants to maximize revenue by selling multiple items to multiple users in each round? This presents a complex problem, as the provider must intelligently offer the items to those users who value them the most without exceeding their highest acceptable prices. In this study, we tackle this challenge by designing online algorithms that can efficiently offer and price items while learning user valuations from accept/reject feedback. We focus on three user valuation models (fixed valuations, random experiences, and random valuations) and provide algorithms with nearly-optimal revenue regret guarantees. In particular, for any market setting with N users, M items, and load L (which roughly corresponds to the maximum number of simultaneous allocations possible), our algorithms achieve regret of order O(NMloglog(LT)) under fixed valuations model, O(√NMLT) under random experiences model and O(√NMLT) under random valuations model in T rounds.more » « less
-
Banerjee, Arindam; Fukumizu, Kenji (Ed.)Numerous tasks in machine learning and artificial intelligence have been modeled as submodular maximization problems. These problems usually involve sensitive data about individuals, and in addition to maximizing the utility, privacy concerns should be considered. In this paper, we study the general framework of non-negative monotone submodular maximization subject to matroid or knapsack constraints in both offline and online settings. For the offline setting, we propose a differentially private $$(1-\frac{\kappa}{e})$$-approximation algorithm, where $$\kappa\in[0,1]$$ is the total curvature of the submodular set function, which improves upon prior works in terms of approximation guarantee and query complexity under the same privacy budget. In the online setting, we propose the first differentially private algorithm, and we specify the conditions under which the regret bound scales as $$Ø(\sqrt{T})$$, i.e., privacy could be ensured while maintaining the same regret bound as the optimal regret guarantee in the non-private setting.more » « less
