Differential Privacy in Personalized Pricing with Nonparametric Demand Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the rapid development of artificial intelligence and big data, the application of data-driven personalized pricing has been increasingly prevalent in real practices such as finance, insurance, and retailing. However, with the public’s growing concern of the abuse of their personal data, legislation efforts are being taken to guarantee data privacy. In this work, we guarantee customers’ data privacy from the algorithm design of our dynamic personalized pricing policies. Two algorithms are developed with different levels of privacy guarantee. The first algorithm protects customers’ data in a centralized manner, meaning that the data aggregator (the pricing platform) is trusted, and the attacker is unlikely to know customers’ personal information. The second algorithm has a stronger privacy guarantee, which is mathematically proved to be able to protect customers’ data even when the data set is hacked. Besides privacy protection, both of our algorithms are effective in achieving near-optimal revenue maximization.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.066 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it