Privacy-Preserving Personalized Revenue Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines how data-driven personalized decisions can be made while preserving consumer privacy. Our setting is one in which the firm chooses a personalized price based on each new customer’s vector of individual features; the true set of individual demand-generating parameters is unknown to the firm and so must be estimated from historical data. We extend the existing personalized pricing framework by requiring also that the firm’s pricing policy preserve consumer privacy, or (formally) that it be differentially private: an industry standard for privacy preservation. We develop privacy-preserving personalized pricing algorithms and show that they achieve near-optimal revenue by deriving theoretical (upper and lower) performance bounds. Our analyses further suggest that, if the firm possesses a sufficient amount of historical data, then it can achieve a certain level of differential privacy almost “for free.” That is, the revenue loss due to privacy preservation is of smaller order than that due to estimation. We confirm our theoretical findings in a series of numerical experiments based on synthetically generated and online auto lending (CPRM-12-001) data sets. Finally, motivated by practical considerations, we also extend our algorithms and findings to a variety of alternative settings, including multiproduct pricing with substitution effect, discrete feasible price set, categorical sensitive features, and personalized assortment optimization. This paper was accepted by Vishal Gaur, operations management. Funding: R. Momot acknowledges financial support from the HEC Paris Foundation and the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (French National Research Agency) “Investissements d’Avenir” [Grant LabEx Ecodec/ANR-11-LABX-0047] during the initial stages of this project. Supplemental Material: The data files and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4925 .
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".