Dynamic Pricing with Online Learning and Strategic Consumers: An Application of the Aggregating Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the problem faced by a monopolistic company that is dynamically pricing a perishable product or service and simultaneously learning the demand characteristics of its customers. In the learning procedure, the company observes the sales history over consecutive learning stages and predicts consumer demand by applying an aggregating algorithm (AA) to a pool of online stochastic predictors. Numerical implementation uses finite-sample distribution approximations that are periodically updated using the most recent sales data. These are subsequently altered with a random step characterizing the stochastic predictors. The company's pricing policy is optimized with a simulation-based procedure integrated with AA. The methodology of the paper is general and independent of specific distributional assumptions. We illustrate this procedure on a demand model for a market in which customers are aware that pricing is dynamic, may time their purchases strategically, and compete for a limited product supply. We derive the form of this demand model using a game-theoretic consumer choice model and study its structural properties. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the learning procedure is robust to deviations of the actual market from the model of the market used in learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".