Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Algorithmic Pricing and Algorithmic Collusion

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Algorithmic collusion is a real phenomenon whose theory is still missing.

desk verdict A competent, honest catchword survey of algorithmic collusion that maps the literature well but rests its BISE research agenda on an unresolved external-validity question; worth sending to referees for its venue. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.16592 v1 pith:A7O5CXIE submitted 2025-04-23 cs.GT

Martin Bichler , Julius Durmann , Matthias Oberlechner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.GT
keywords algorithmiccollusiononlinelearningrepeatedBertrandcompetitionQ-learningtacitequilibriumdynamicpricinggametheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that algorithmic collusion, supra-competitive prices sustained by independent learning agents that never communicate, is a real phenomenon rather than a theoretical curiosity. It gathers simulation results in which Q-learning and UCB pricing agents repeatedly interacting in Bertrand oligopoly models settle above the static Nash equilibrium, alongside a field study of German gasoline stations in which margins rose after both rivals adopted pricing software. On that basis, it claims that no comprehensive theory yet says when learning algorithms converge to competitive equilibrium and when they instead collude, cycle, or behave chaotically. The authors use this gap to define a research agenda for the information-systems community covering algorithm design, detection, regulation, transparency, and markets beyond simple oligopolies. A careful reader should care because the answer determines whether automated pricing in online retail can be assumed efficient or needs oversight.

What carries the argument

The repeated Bertrand pricing game is the central object: at each stage, firms simultaneously choose prices and receive profits set by a demand function, with all-or-nothing demand or logit demand as the main specifications. The Nash equilibrium of this stage game serves as the competitive baseline, and the paper defines algorithmic collusion as any learned outcome above that baseline produced by independent algorithms without explicit agreement. The distinction between a single agent learning against a fixed environment and multiple agents learning against each other is the mechanism that carries the argument: it turns collusion into a question of equilibrium learning, not optimization. Known positive results for convergence to Nash, such as potential games and strict monotonicity, are then used to show how far the Bertrand pricing game is from the territory where convergence is understood.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a theorem showing that for every no-regret learning algorithm and every plausible Bertrand demand model, repeated play converges to the static Nash equilibrium; failing that, a large-scale field study across many retail sectors finding no price or margin change after independent pricing algorithms are adopted would undercut the empirical urgency. Either result would displace the paper's claim that algorithmic collusion is a real, general phenomenon without a theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that algorithmic collusion is an established experimental finding with suggestive field support, and that the missing piece is theory. The authors define algorithmic collusion as any supra-competitive outcome above the Nash equilibrium of the static Bertrand pricing game that arises from repeated interactions of learning agents without explicit agreement. They then show that the phenomenon straddles two literatures: single-agent online learning, where regret guarantees describe performance against a fixed environment, and equilibrium learning, where each agent's actions change the environment others face. Because no-regret dynamics are only known to converge to coarse correlated equilibria, and because the classes of games with proven convergence to Nash (potential games, strictly monotone games) do not cover standard Bertrand demand models, the paper concludes that the conditions for algorithmic collusion versus efficient competition remain unknown. The article is written to make that open problem accessible and to propose where the next results should come from.

Load-bearing premise

The agenda assumes that the collusive prices observed in simulations of Q-learning and UCB agents reflect a general property of learning pricing agents, rather than artifacts of the specific algorithms, demand models, and exploration schemes those experiments used.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, firms do not need to communicate or agree to sustain supra-competitive prices; independent profit-maximizing learning algorithms can do it on their own.
  • Competition authorities cannot rely on evidence of explicit agreement; detection must shift to price dynamics and algorithm behavior.
  • The theoretical question of which repeated games and learning algorithms converge to Nash equilibrium becomes a core market-design problem, not a niche concern.
  • Design choices such as exploration rate, feedback type, and whether agents observe states become levers that could either foster or prevent collusive outcomes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If no-regret learning converges only to coarse correlated equilibria in general, and those equilibria can price above the competitive level, then algorithmic collusion may be a generic possibility of learning dynamics rather than a peculiarity of Q-learning; this would make the missing theory a core market-design issue.
  • The field evidence covers one sector; an immediate testable extension is whether the same adoption-driven margin increase appears in online retail, where demand fluctuates and entry is easier.
  • A standardized benchmark that runs several algorithms across demand models, exploration schedules, and update rules would settle whether the conflicting simulation results reflect real sensitivity or implementation artifacts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This is a position article addressed to the Business & Information Systems Engineering (BISE) community. It defines algorithmic collusion as supra-competitive pricing that arises from the repeated interaction of learning algorithms in oligopoly pricing games, reviews the simulation literature (notably Q-learning in Bertrand models), presents the opposing results, introduces the relevant online-learning and equilibrium-learning background, and proposes a research agenda covering algorithms, detection, regulation, accountability, and platform settings beyond oligopoly. The manuscript makes no claim of new theoretical or experimental results; its contribution is synthesis and agenda setting.

Significance. For a BISE readership, this paper is a valuable and accessible entry point to a topic of clear policy relevance. Its strengths are its balanced presentation of the conflicting evidence — it cites both the positive findings of Calvano et al. (2020) and Hansen et al. (2021) and the negative findings of den Boer et al. (2022), Eschenbaum et al. (2022), and Abada et al. (2024b) — and its correct summary of standard results on no-regret learning, potential games, and CCE. The paper also gives concrete research directions rather than a generic call for more work. The main limitation is inherent to the genre: the agenda is motivated by a phenomenon whose external validity is not yet established, but the paper itself identifies this as an open question, which is appropriate.

major comments (2)
  1. [2.2] The definition of algorithmic collusion as 'supra-competitive outcomes different from the Nash equilibrium of the static game-theoretical model' is outcome-based, whereas the immediately preceding quotation of the OECD defines tacit collusion through 'anti-competitive co-ordination' maintained by recognition of mutual interdependence. This conflation of outcome with conduct is consequential for the policy discussion in Section 3, where the paper argues that existing law may not reach algorithmic collusion. The authors should add a clarifying sentence distinguishing the descriptive economic usage (outcome-based, as in the simulation literature) from the legal notion of coordinated conduct, or refine the definition to include a coordination or monitoring component.
  2. [2.2, 3] The research agenda in Section 3 rests on the possibility that algorithmic collusion is a robust market phenomenon, yet the conflicting results in Section 2.2 are not elevated to a first-class open question. Given that the empirical anchor (Assad et al. 2024) covers a single sector and does not demonstrate that the deployed software is a self-learning algorithm of the type simulated, the authors should explicitly list 'establishing the external validity and scope of algorithmic collusion' as a research opportunity, with concrete steps such as broader demand systems, alternative learning algorithms, and field experiments that could adjudicate between the positive and negative findings.
minor comments (5)
  1. [2.2] The phrase 'repeated Prisonner's Dilemmata' contains two errors: 'Prisonner' should be 'Prisoner', and 'Dilemmata' should be 'Dilemma' or 'Prisoners' Dilemma'.
  2. [2.1] In the sentence 'the agent would leverage the information about the utility, i.e., feedback, she gets in order to update his actions or prices', the pronouns 'she' and 'his' are inconsistent; use 'they' or a single gendered pronoun consistently.
  3. [2.3] The sentence 'A classical result is that the class of no-regret learning algorithms converges to the so-called coarse correlated equilibrium (CCE) of a game Fudenberg and Levine (1999)' is missing a period before the citation; the word 'game' should also be plural ('game') if referring to all games, or the sentence should read 'of a game.'
  4. [3] There is a typo in the phrase 'oligpoloy models'; it should be 'oligopoly models'.
  5. [2.1] The word 'characeristic' in 'The key characeristic in this literature' is misspelled; it should be 'characteristic'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Survey/agenda article with no derivation; the central claim rests on external literature and the paper explicitly reports the dissenting evidence, while its few self-citations are contextual and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a 'catchword' survey/agenda article, not a derivation: it fits no parameters, makes no empirical prediction, and proves no theorem, so the structural circularity patterns (self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation) do not apply. The central claim — that algorithmic collusion by learning pricing agents is a demonstrated but theoretically under-characterized phenomenon — is anchored in external, independently published work (Calvano et al. 2020; Hansen et al. 2021; Assad et al. 2024), and the paper openly reports the contradicting evidence: 'the magnitude of the threat from algorithmic collusion by autonomous self-learning algorithms in other markets is still disputed' (Section 1), and Section 2.2 summarizes den Boer et al. (2022), Asker et al. (2022), Abada et al. (2024b), and Eschenbaum et al. (2022) showing collusion is fragile or absent under different conditions. No equation reduces to another, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked. The self-citations (Bichler et al. 2023/2024/2025; Deng et al. 2024) are used to document that the BISE literature on algorithmic collusion is still scarce and to illustrate adjacent auction/platform settings; the one place where self-citations do substantive work is Section 3 ('Beyond oligopoly competition'), where Bichler et al. (2024) and Bichler et al. (2025) are cited for the claim that the phenomenon extends beyond Bertrand oligopolies. That claim is hedged ('there is no reason to believe that the phenomenon can only arise there'), is not the paper's central contention, and losing it would not collapse the proposed research agenda. The load-bearing premise of the agenda — that the positive simulation results are not artifacts of specific algorithms and demand models — is an external-validity concern the paper itself flags, not a circularity. No circular step meets the evidentiary bar; the score of 1 merely reflects the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations in an otherwise self-contained survey.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a review; the contribution is a synthesis. The central claim depends on the external literature, not on new postulates. The main risk is domain assumptions about transferability of simulation results to real markets.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Algorithmic pricing on online retail platforms is adequately modeled as a repeated Bertrand oligopoly with fixed demand functions.
    The paper's whole framing (Section 2) treats Bertrand competition with all-or-nothing or logit demand as the canonical environment and generalizes claims about collusion from it to real markets. The paper itself flags this as an abstraction.
  • standard math The Folk Theorem for repeated games sustains supra-competitive equilibria when players are patient.
    Invoked in Section 2 to explain why collusion is theoretically possible without explicit agreements.
  • standard math No-regret learning converges to coarse correlated equilibrium (Fudenberg and Levine 1999).
    Used in Section 2.3 to state that CCE is a weak solution concept and does not pin down outcomes.
  • domain assumption Experimental findings with Q-learning and UCB in simulated Bertrand games are indicative of behavior of real-world pricing algorithms.
    The paper's motivation (Sections 1 and 2.2) rests on simulations showing supra-competitive prices; it simultaneously acknowledges counterexamples, making this the key fragile premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Algorithmic Pricing and Algorithmic Collusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7O5CXIE

@misc{pith2026250416592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Algorithmic Pricing and Algorithmic Collusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7O5CXIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.16592}
}
read the original abstract

The rise of algorithmic pricing in online retail platforms has attracted significant interest in how autonomous software agents interact under competition. This article explores the potential emergence of algorithmic collusion - supra-competitive pricing outcomes that arise without explicit agreements - as a consequence of repeated interactions between learning agents. Most of the literature focuses on oligopoly pricing environments modeled as repeated Bertrand competitions, where firms use online learning algorithms to adapt prices over time. While experimental research has demonstrated that specific reinforcement learning algorithms can learn to maintain prices above competitive equilibrium levels in simulated environments, theoretical understanding of when and why such outcomes occur remains limited. This work highlights the interdisciplinary nature of this challenge, which connects computer science concepts of online learning with game-theoretical literature on equilibrium learning. We examine implications for the Business & Information Systems Engineering (BISE) community and identify specific research opportunities to address challenges of algorithmic competition in digital marketplaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.16592 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Learning Agents in Different Contexts In the classical online learning setting, a single agent selects actions and observes stochastic (or adversarial) payoffs. By contrast, algorithmic collusion studies the outcomes when multiple agents interact using online learning algorithms. Understanding the results of these multi-agent learning processes requires consideration of the algorithm, but also of the structure and p… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of BISE Research Opportunities Pricing agents on retail platforms such as Amazon are an example, and so are display ad auctions. The question of how these agents interact and what outcomes they produce is of great interest to researchers and policymakers. Does the use of learning algorithms in pricing lead to efficient equilibrium outcomes or does it jeopardize consumer welfare by leading to algorithmic col… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in "" FUNCTION format.date year ...

  3. [3]

    Abada I, Harrington Jr JE, Lambin X, Meylahn JM (2024 a ) Algorithmic collusion: Where are we and where should we be going? Available at SSRN 4891033

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Abada I, Lambin X (2023) Artificial Intelligence : Can Seemingly Collusive Outcomes Be Avoided ? Management Science 69(9):5042--5065

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Abada I, Lambin X, Tchakarov N (2024 b ) Collusion by mistake: Does algorithmic sophistication drive supra-competitive profits? European Journal of Operational Research 318(3):927--953

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    AEA P apers and P roceedings , volume 112, 452--56

    Asker J, Fershtman C, Pakes A (2022) Artificial intelligence, algorithm design, and pricing. AEA P apers and P roceedings , volume 112, 452--56

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Journal of Political Economy 132(3):723--771

    Assad S, Clark R, Ershov D, Xu L (2024) Algorithmic pricing and competition: Empirical evidence from the german retail gasoline market. Journal of Political Economy 132(3):723--771

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Proceedings of the 2018 ACM C onference on E conomics and C omputation , 321--338

    Bailey JP, Piliouras G (2018) Multiplicative weights update in zero-sum games. Proceedings of the 2018 ACM C onference on E conomics and C omputation , 321--338

    work page 2018

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Decision Support Systems 106:53--63

    Bauer J, Jannach D (2018) Optimal pricing in e-commerce based on sparse and noisy data. Decision Support Systems 106:53--63

    2018

  2. [10]

    Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 9(1):152--176

    Beneke F, Mackenrodt MO (2021) Remedies for algorithmic tacit collusion. Journal of Antitrust Enforcement 9(1):152--176

    2021

  3. [11]

    Journal des Savants

    Bertrand J (1883) Book review of theorie mathematique de la richesse social and of recherches sur les principes mathematiques de la theorie des richesses. Journal des Savants

  4. [12]

    Bichler M, Buergermeister J, Schiffer M (2025) Predatory pricing in two-sided markets: An equilibrium learning approach. ArXiV

    2025

  5. [13]

    Operations Research

    Bichler M, Fichtl M, Oberlechner M (2023) Computing Bayes – Nash Equilibrium Strategies in Auction Games via Simultaneous Online Dual Averaging . Operations Research

    2023

  6. [14]

    Information Systems Research 21(4):688--699

    Bichler M, Gupta A, Ketter W (2010) Research commentary—designing smart markets. Information Systems Research 21(4):688--699

    2010

  7. [15]

    non-quasilinear preferences

    Bichler M, Gupta A, Mathews L, Oberlechner M (2024) Low revenue in display ad auctions: Algorithmic collusion vs. non-quasilinear preferences. Conference on Information Systems and Technology

    2024

  8. [16]

    Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 223--232 (PMLR)

    Bonjour T, Aggarwal V, Bhargava B (2022) Information theoretic approach to detect collusion in multi-agent games. Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 223--232 (PMLR)

    2022

  9. [17]

    European Conference on Information Systems

    Brackmann C, Wulfert T, Busch J, Sch \"u tte R (2024) The art of retail pricing: Developing a taxonomy for describing pricing algorithms. European Conference on Information Systems

    2024

  10. [18]

    Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation 13(1):374--376

    Brown GW (1951) Iterative solution of games by fictitious play. Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation 13(1):374--376

    1951

  11. [19]

    American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 15(2):109--156

    Brown ZY, MacKay A (2023) Competition in Pricing Algorithms . American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 15(2):109--156

    2023

  12. [20]

    Bubeck S (2011) Introduction to Online Optimization

    2011

  13. [21]

    American Economic Review 110(10):3267--3297

    Calvano E, Calzolari G, Denicol \`o V, Pastorello S (2020) Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Pricing, and Collusion . American Economic Review 110(10):3267--3297

    2020

  14. [22]

    Calvano E, Calzolari G, Denicolò V, Pastorello S (2019) Algorithmic Pricing What Implications for Competition Policy ? Review of Industrial Organization 55(1):155--171

    2019

  15. [23]

    Cesa-Bianchi N, Lugosi G (2006) Prediction, learning, and games (Cambridge University Press)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web , 1339--1349, WWW '16 ( International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee )

    Chen L, Mislove A, Wilson C (2016) An empirical analysis of algorithmic pricing on amazon marketplace. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web , 1339--1349, WWW '16 ( International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee )

    2016

  17. [25]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30

    Cohen J, Heliou A, Mertikopoulos P (2017) Learning with bandit feedback in potential games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30

    2017

  18. [26]

    Information Systems Research 29(2):381--400

    Constantinides P, Henfridsson O, Parker GG (2018) Introduction—platforms and infrastructures in the digital age. Information Systems Research 29(2):381--400

    2018

  19. [27]

    Hachette)

    Cournot AA (1838) Recherches sur les principes math \'e matiques de la th \'e orie des richesses (L. Hachette)

  20. [28]

    SIAM Journal on Computing 39(1):195--259

    Daskalakis C, Goldberg PW, Papadimitriou CH (2009) The complexity of computing a nash equilibrium. SIAM Journal on Computing 39(1):195--259

    2009

  21. [29]

    Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science 20(1):1--18

    den Boer AV (2015) Dynamic pricing and learning: Historical origins, current research, and new directions. Surveys in Operations Research and Management Science 20(1):1--18

    2015

  22. [30]

    Available at SSRN 4636488

    den Boer AV (2023) Algorithmic Collusion : A Mathematical Definition and Research Agenda for the OR / MS Community . Available at SSRN 4636488

    2023

  23. [31]

    Available at SSRN 4213600

    den Boer AV, Meylahn JM, Schinkel MP (2022) Artificial Collusion : Examining Supracompetitive Pricing by Q - Learning Algorithms . Available at SSRN 4213600

    2022

  24. [32]

    Proceedings of Wirtschaftsinformatik 2024

    Deng S, Schiffer M, Bichler M (2024) Algorithmic collusion in dynamic pricing with deep reinforcement learning. Proceedings of Wirtschaftsinformatik 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Journal of Global Optimization 70:687--704

    Dong QL, Cho Y, Zhong L, Rassias TM (2018) Inertial projection and contraction algorithms for variational inequalities. Journal of Global Optimization 70:687--704

    2018

  26. [34]

    Information Systems Research 32(3):820--835

    Dou Y, Wu D (2021) Platform competition under network effects: Piggybacking and optimal subsidization. Information Systems Research 32(3):820--835

    2021

  27. [35]

    Douglas C, Provost F, Sundararajan A (2024) Naive algorithmic collusion: When do bandit learners cooperate and when do they compete? arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.16574

    2024

  28. [36]

    Soft Computing 25(17):11711--11733

    Elreedy D, Atiya AF, Shaheen SI (2021) Novel pricing strategies for revenue maximization and demand learning using an exploration--exploitation framework. Soft Computing 25(17):11711--11733

    2021

  29. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00345

    Eschenbaum N, Mellgren F, Zahn P (2022) Robust algorithmic collusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00345

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Games and Economic Behavior 21(1-2):40

    Foster DP, Vohra RV (1997) Calibrated learning and correlated equilibrium. Games and Economic Behavior 21(1-2):40

    1997

  31. [39]

    edition, ISBN 978-0-262-06194-0

    Fudenberg D, Levine DK (1999) The Theory of Learning in Games, volume 2 of MIT Press Series on Economic Learning and Social Evolution ( Cambridge : MIT Press ), 2. edition, ISBN 978-0-262-06194-0

    1999

  32. [40]

    Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ)-Vol 45

    F \"u gener A, Grahl J, Gupta A, Ketter W (2021) Will humans-in-the-loop become borgs? merits and pitfalls of working with ai. Management Information Systems Quarterly (MISQ)-Vol 45

    2021

  33. [41]

    Marketing Science 40(1):1--12

    Hansen KT, Misra K, Pai MM (2021) Frontiers: Algorithmic Collusion : Supra -competitive Prices via Independent Algorithms . Marketing Science 40(1):1--12

    2021

  34. [42]

    Games and economic behavior 57(2):286--303

    Hart S, Mas-Colell A (2006) Stochastic uncoupled dynamics and nash equilibrium. Games and economic behavior 57(2):286--303

    2006

  35. [43]

    Business & Information Systems Engineering 65(6):723--730

    Horneber D, Laumer S (2023) Algorithmic A ccountability. Business & Information Systems Engineering 65(6):723--730

    2023

  36. [44]

    International Conference on Information Systems

    Kang S, Kim MH, Kim K (2022) Raising skepticisms on the feasibility of algorithmic tacit collusion. International Conference on Information Systems

    2022

  37. [45]

    International Conference on Information Systems

    Kasa SR, Rajan V (2021) Dependency modeling with copulas in multi-armed bandits. International Conference on Information Systems

    2021

  38. [46]

    Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 21(1):50--63

    Kastius A, Schlosser R (2022) Dynamic pricing under competition using reinforcement learning. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 21(1):50--63

    2022

  39. [47]

    The RAND Journal of Economics 52(3):538--558

    Klein T (2021) Autonomous algorithmic collusion: Q -learning under sequential pricing. The RAND Journal of Economics 52(3):538--558

    2021

  40. [48]

    Available at SSRN 4498926

    Lambin X (2024) Less than meets the eye: simultaneous experiments as a source of algorithmic seeming collusion. Available at SSRN 4498926

    2024

  41. [49]

    Information Systems Research

    Lu T, Zhang Y (2024) 1+ 1> 2? information, humans, and machines. Information Systems Research

    2024

  42. [50]

    Information Systems Research 34(3):1191--1210

    Lysyakov M, Viswanathan S (2023) Threatened by ai: Analyzing users’ responses to the introduction of ai in a crowd-sourcing platform. Information Systems Research 34(3):1191--1210

    2023

  43. [51]

    Communications of the ACM 30(6):484--497

    Malone TW, Yates J, Benjamin RI (1987) Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Communications of the ACM 30(6):484--497

    1987

  44. [52]

    Maschler M, Zamir S, Solan E (2020) Game theory (Cambridge University Press)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 549--569

    Maskin E, Tirole J (1988) A theory of dynamic oligopoly, i: Overview and quantity competition with large fixed costs. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 549--569

    1988

  46. [54]

    Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms, 2703--2717 (SIAM)

    Mertikopoulos P, Papadimitriou C, Piliouras G (2018) Cycles in adversarial regularized learning. Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms, 2703--2717 (SIAM)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Mathematical Programming 173(1-2):465--507

    Mertikopoulos P, Zhou Z (2019) Learning in games with continuous action sets and unknown payoff functions. Mathematical Programming 173(1-2):465--507

    2019

  48. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.14129 120(41):e2305349120

    Milionis J, Papadimitriou C, Piliouras G, Spendlove K (2022) Nash, conley, and computation: Impossibility and incompleteness in game dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.14129 120(41):e2305349120

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Games and economic behavior 14(1):124--143

    Monderer D, Shapley LS (1996) Potential games. Games and economic behavior 14(1):124--143

    1996

  50. [58]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32

    Mueller JW, Syrgkanis V, Taddy M (2019) Low-rank bandit methods for high-dimensional dynamic pricing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32

    2019

  51. [59]

    Technical report, OECD

    OECD (2017) Algorithms and Collusion : Competition Policy in the Digital Age . Technical report, OECD

    2017

  52. [60]

    Technical report, OECD

    OECD (2024) Algorithms competition. Technical report, OECD

    2024

  53. [61]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30 (Curran Associates, Inc.)

    Palaiopanos G, Panageas I, Piliouras G (2017) Multiplicative weights update with constant step-size in congestion games: Convergence, limit cycles and chaos. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30 (Curran Associates, Inc.)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Parker GG, Van Alstyne MW, Choudary SP (2016) Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy and how to make them work for you (WW Norton & Company)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Applied and Computational Engineering 37:160--165

    Qu J (2024) Survey of dynamic pricing based on multi-armed bandit algorithms. Applied and Computational Engineering 37:160--165

    2024

  56. [64]

    Omega 47:116--126

    Rana R, Oliveira FS (2014) Real-time dynamic pricing in a non-stationary environment using model-free reinforcement learning. Omega 47:116--126

    2014

  57. [65]

    Journal of Economic Theory 9(2):185--202

    Rothschild M (1974) A two-armed bandit theory of market pricing. Journal of Economic Theory 9(2):185--202

    1974

  58. [66]

    a rkte. Handbuch Electronic Business: Informationstechnologien—Electronic Commerce—Gesch \

    Schmid BF (2000) Elektronische m \"a rkte. Handbuch Electronic Business: Informationstechnologien—Electronic Commerce—Gesch \"a ftsprozesse 179--207

    2000

  59. [67]

    Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 4(2):107--194

    Shalev-Shwartz S (2011) Online Learning and Online Convex Optimization . Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 4(2):107--194

    2011

  60. [68]

    Under review

    Taywade K, Goldsmith J, Harrison B, Bagh A (2023) Multi-armed Bandit Algorithms for Cournot Games . Under review

    2023

  61. [69]

    (2015) Multi-armed bandit for pricing

    Trovo F, Paladino S, Restelli M, Gatti N, et al. (2015) Multi-armed bandit for pricing. Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Reinforcement Learning , 1--9

    2015

  62. [70]

    Varian HR (2014) Intermediate microeconomics with calculus: a modern approach (WW norton & company)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 32(10):3275--3293

    Waltman L, Kaymak U (2008) Q-learning agents in a cournot oligopoly model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 32(10):3275--3293

    2008

  64. [72]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, 9944--9951

    Xu YE, Ling CK, Fang F (2024) Learning coalition structures with games. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, 9944--9951

    2024

  65. [73]

    Number 2002 in The Arne Ryde memorial lectures (Oxford Univ

    Young HP (2010) Strategic learning and its limits. Number 2002 in The Arne Ryde memorial lectures (Oxford Univ. Pr), repr edition

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.