MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887934021 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0249182

Using survival prediction techniques to learn consumer-specific reservation price distributions

2021· article· en· W2887934021 on OpenAlexafffund
Ping Jin, Humza Haider, Russell Greiner, Sarah Wei, Gerald Häubl

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Machine Intelligence Institute
KeywordsReservationComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Task (project management)Database transactionNegotiationEconometricsData miningPredictive modellingMachine learningDatabaseEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A consumer's "reservation price" (RP) is the highest price that s/he is willing to pay for one unit of a specified product or service. It is an essential concept in many applications, including personalized pricing, auction and negotiation. While consumers will not volunteer their RPs, we may be able to predict these values, based on each consumer's specific information, using a model learned from earlier consumer transactions. Here, we view each such (non)transaction as a censored observation, which motivates us to use techniques from survival analysis/prediction, to produce models that can generate a consumer-specific RP distribution, based on features of each new consumer. To validate this framework of RP, we run experiments on realistic data, with four survival prediction methods. These models performed very well (under three different criteria) on the task of estimating consumer-specific RP distributions, which shows that our RP framework can be effective.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.131
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.142 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207