Search for: All records

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.