Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personalized prices can boost revenue, but they increasingly draw fire for hidden discrimination. A new study, “Dynamic Pricing with Fairness Constraints,” by Maxime C. Cohen, Sentao Miao, and Yining Wang, shows that firms can learn demand while staying fair at the same time. The authors embed two complementary notions of fairness into the classic learning-and-earning problem. The first, price fairness, limits price gaps across customer groups and over time, whereas the second, demand fairness, keeps realized demand shares balanced. To enforce price fairness, the authors design FaPU, an infrequently updated upper confidence bound algorithm that respects both group and temporal limits while securing near-optimal regret and matching lower bounds. For demand fairness, they propose FaPD, a primal-dual learner that meets aggregate demand quotas with high probability and the same near-optimal regret rate. Beyond providing tight theoretical analyses, the paper quantifies the “price of fairness” and outlines extensions to non-stationary markets, offering regulators and practitioners evidence that equity and profitability can coexist in algorithmic pricing.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".