Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Balancing Profit and Fairness in Risk-Based Pricing Markets

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A learned, interpretable tax schedule can realign risk-based pricing with fairness.

desk verdict A correct but elementary bound and a plausible RL-tax pipeline, with simulation claims that only hold on the authors' own objective and unreported demand parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00140 v2 pith:VY2XFEG5 submitted 2025-05-30 cs.AI cs.LGecon.GNq-fin.EC

Jesse Thibodeau , Hadi Nekoei , Afaf Taïk , Janarthanan Rajendran , Golnoosh Farnadi This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.LGecon.GNq-fin.EC
keywords fairnessinpricingrisk-baseddemandreinforcementlearningsocialplannertaxationpolicymarketsimulationdynamic
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

This paper argues that a regulator can fix the fairness failures of risk-based dynamic pricing without sacrificing firm profit or transparency. The authors prove that if each firm is $\epsilon$-locally fair, the entire market is $\min(n\epsilon, 1)$-globally fair in terms of opt-out gaps, so firm-level penalties control the market-wide disparity. They build MarketSim, a simulator of heterogeneous consumers and profit-maximizing firms, and train a reinforcement-learning social planner that chooses a bracketed tax schedule while staying close to a simple linear baseline. In two empirically calibrated markets (U.S. health insurance and consumer credit), the learned tax raises demand fairness by up to 16% relative to the unregulated Free Market and increases social welfare by about 11% and 15%, respectively, while keeping the policy interpretable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the bracketed fairness tax together with the local-to-global fairness bound. A firm's local fairness is its demographic gap, $\max_{i,k} |\Pr(F=j|A=i) - \Pr(F=j|A=k)|$, and the tax schedule partitions $[0,1]$ into $B$ brackets, applying a rate $\tau_b$ to firms whose local fairness falls in bracket $b$. Proposition 1 states that if every firm's local gap is at most $\epsilon$, the market-wide opt-out disparity is at most $\min(n\epsilon, 1)$; this is what licenses rewarding or penalizing each firm independently instead of coordinating across the market. The planner maximizes $W(\tau) = (\text{average after-tax firm profit}) \times (\text{global fairness}) - \lambda \sum_b |\tau_b - \tau_b^{\mathrm{base}}|$, where $\tau_b^{\mathrm{base}} = 1 - b/B$ is the linear baseline. Keeping the learned schedule close to that baseline is what yields a transparent, monotonic-looking policy that still outperforms the hand-crafted linear one.

What would settle it

Re-run the two case studies with consumer price sensitivities and firm marginal costs drawn from the confidence intervals of econometric estimates (e.g., from actual insurer or lender pricing data), or with the unreported base utilities $\alpha_j$ and $\alpha_0$ varied over a plausible range; if the RL-SP welfare advantage over Free Market drops to near zero or reverses, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a regulator can realign profit-maximizing firms' incentives with social objectives through a learned, interpretable tax schedule, and it supports this claim with a formal fairness bound and an RL planner in two simulated markets. Proposition 1 shows that if every firm has a local demographic gap at most $\epsilon$, then the entire market's opt-out disparity is at most $\min(n\epsilon, 1)$, so firm-level penalties control the global fairness metric. The planner uses Soft Actor-Critic to pick rates for fairness brackets, with an $\ell^1$ regularizer keeping the policy near a simple linear schedule, preserving interpretability. In the health-insurance market (two firms) and consumer-credit market (five firms), the planner raises demand fairness by up to 16% relative to the unregulated Free Market and improves social welfare by roughly 11% and 15%, while keeping after-tax profits at or above the competitive level. The authors interpret this as resolving a social dilemma: the learned tax acts as an implicit coordination device, nudging firms toward the collusive profit level without explicit collusion.

Load-bearing premise

The welfare and fairness gains are computed inside a simulator whose price sensitivities, marginal costs, and base utility constants are hand-set rather than estimated from real transaction data, so the results may not survive realistic parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A regulator can implement the policy with a simple bracket tax per firm; no price caps or market-wide coordination are required.
  • Competitive markets in these settings are socially inefficient, and a learned incentive schedule can raise both aggregate after-tax profit and fairness relative to the unregulated Nash equilibrium.
  • Monitoring each firm's local demographic gap gives a certificate on the market's opt-out disparity, making the fairness guarantee auditable from firm-level data.
  • Because the planner stays near the linear baseline, the resulting policy can be understood and overseen as a tweak to a naive tax, which lowers the barrier to adoption by policymakers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The $\min(n\epsilon, 1)$ bound grows with the number of firms, so in highly fragmented markets the same per-firm local gap may allow a much larger global opt-out disparity; testing the RL planner across the 2-to-100-firm range already used for runtime benchmarking would show whether the welfare gains shrink with $n$.
  • The paper's own collusion results show a pure parity metric rewards equal exclusion: collusion scores higher fairness than Free Market while raising opt-out rates for every group. A consumer-surplus fairness metric, which the authors sketch, would likely change the optimal bracket structure and is a natural next comparison.
  • The calibration sets elasticities, marginal costs, and unstated base utilities by hand; fitting these from actual claims or loan data would test whether the 11% and 15% welfare gains survive outside the chosen parameterization.
  • If the learned schedules from insurance and credit were transferred to a third market (e.g., transportation or education pricing), the degree to which they resemble each other would indicate whether the planner learns general incentive principles or overfits to the two case studies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reinforcement learning (RL) social planner that sets a bracketed fairness tax on firms in simulated risk-based pricing markets, with the goal of improving demand fairness and social welfare. It introduces MarketSim, a multi-agent simulator of heterogeneous consumers and profit-maximizing firms, and presents two case studies (health insurance and consumer credit). A theoretical result (Proposition 1) shows that if each firm is epsilon-locally fair, the global opt-out disparity is bounded by min(n epsilon, 1). Empirically, the RL planner is reported to improve social welfare by about 11% in insurance and 15% in credit relative to Free Market, while also raising demand fairness. The paper argues that such regulation can convert a competitive social dilemma into a win-win equilibrium.

Significance. If the empirical results were robust, the paper would demonstrate a practical and interpretable mechanism for fairness-aware regulation in dynamic pricing markets, building on a clean theoretical bound. Proposition 1 is correct, simple, and potentially useful for justifying firm-level fairness penalties. The MarketSim framework could be a valuable open-source tool for studying market regulation, though the code is not yet released. However, the significance is limited by the current evaluation: the social welfare measure excludes consumer surplus and absolute participation, the markets are not reproducible because key utility parameters are unreported, and no sensitivity or equilibrium analysis is provided. The central claim depends on these unvalidated choices.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.3, Eq. (W)] The social welfare objective W(tau) is defined as (average after-tax firm profit) x fairness_global(tau). This objective excludes consumer surplus and does not penalize absolute opt-out rates. Consequently, the reported welfare gains do not establish the central claim that the regulator realigns private incentives with social objectives. For example, Table 3 (credit) shows the RL-SP increasing market-wide opt-out from 0.173 (Free Market) to 0.218, and Figure 5 shows higher opt-out among high- and middle-income groups, yet this is reported as a 15% welfare improvement. Section 6 introduces a consumer surplus formula (log-sum rule) but never reports consumer surplus under any regime. Please report consumer surplus and total participation for all regimes, and consider a welfare measure that explicitly includes these components, or clearly justify why they are omitted.
  2. [Section 5, Table 1 and Algorithm 1] The empirical markets are not reproducible because the base utilities alpha_j and alpha_0 (introduced in Section 4.1 and used in Algorithm 1) are never reported. Table 1 lists only price sensitivities beta and marginal costs mc. The logit demand probabilities depend directly on alpha_0 - alpha_j, so the 'empirically calibrated' markets are not fully specified, and no sensitivity analysis to these constants is possible. Furthermore, the values of beta and mc are hand-set with no estimation procedure or sensitivity study. The headline welfare and fairness gains may be artifacts of this particular parameterization. Please provide the full parameter set, including alpha values, and a sensitivity analysis over plausible ranges, or make the code publicly available so that results can be verified.
  3. [Section 5 and Algorithm 1] The paper states that outcomes are reported 'after convergence to Nash equilibrium prices,' but no verification is provided that the simultaneous best-response dynamics converge to a Nash equilibrium. Firm optimization uses Powell's derivative-free method on a problem that Section 4.2 itself notes has 'inherent jump discontinuities,' which is non-concave and may have multiple local optima. Different initializations could yield different equilibria, and the reported comparisons may depend on the particular equilibrium found. Please provide convergence diagnostics, multiple random restarts, or a formal best-response analysis to support the claim that the reported outcomes are equilibrium outcomes.
  4. [Section 6.1 and Table 3] The fairness-maximizing ablation shows an empirical upper bound on fairness of 0.895 in insurance and 0.791 in credit. The welfare-maximizing RL-SP achieves fairness of 0.895 in insurance (equal to the maximum) and 0.767 in credit (close to the maximum). This suggests that the welfare objective may be dominated by the fairness term despite the multiplicative form, and that the reported 'win-win' trade-off may be sensitive to the regularization weights lambda_ins=100 and lambda_cred=10, which are chosen without justification. Please analyze how the welfare results vary with lambda and discuss the balance between the profit and fairness components in the learned policies.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Algorithm 1] The expected profit formula in Section 4.2, E[Pi_j] = sum_i p_{j|i}(p_{i,j} - mc_{i,j}), omits the group sizes S_i that appear in Algorithm 1's firm update and in the final profit computation. This inconsistency should be corrected or clarified, as group sizes directly affect profit and welfare.
  2. [Section 4.3] The definition of firm fairness f_j used to assign tax brackets is not explicitly connected to the local fairness gap from Proposition 1. Please state how f_j is computed from the conditional purchase probabilities Pr(F=j|A=i), and reconcile the notation 'fairness_global' with Definition 2.
  3. [Section 6] The consumer surplus formula CS(tau)_i = (1/beta_i) log( sum_{j=1}^N exp(alpha_j - beta_i p_{i,j}) ) omits the outside option alpha_0. The standard log-sum rule should include all options, including j=0, to measure surplus relative to the outside alternative.
  4. [Section 5 and Section 6] There are several typos, including 'consruct' in Section 5 and 'yeilding' in Section 6; also, the price bounds are inconsistent between '0 <= p_{i,j} <= p_max' in Section 4.2 and 'p_min <= p_{i,j} <= p_max' in Section 4.3 with p_min=1 reported in Table 1.
  5. [Appendix B, Proposition 2] The probabilistic bound assumes that the variables X_j = Pr(F=j|A=k) - Pr(F=j|A=i) are independent across firms. In this market model, purchase probabilities are generated by a single logit demand system and are not independent; the assumption should be justified or the proposition should be presented as a purely illustrative bound.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Proposition 1 is a genuine probability derivation and the welfare results are explicit evaluations of the stated objective, not predictions derived from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's first-principles claim is Proposition 1, which derives a global opt-out gap bound from local firm-level fairness constraints. The proof uses only the complement identity p_{0|i} = 1 - sum_j p_{j|i}, the triangle inequality, and the probabilistic range [0,1]; none of these presuppose the conclusion, so the local-to-global implication is not circular. The RL social planner is trained to maximize the explicitly stated welfare measure W(tau) = (1/n) sum_j E[Pi_j](1 - tau_{b_j}) x fairness_global(tau), and Table 3 reports W at the learned policy versus baselines. This is an in-sample optimization result rather than an out-of-sample prediction, which limits external validity but does not constitute circularity: the objective and the fitted policy are distinct objects, and the reported values are not claimed to be independent of the reward. The paper cites prior work (Cohen et al.; Zheng et al.) for fairness definitions and a multiplicative welfare formulation, but these citations are external and not authored by the present authors, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives. The empirically calibrated parameters (beta, mc) are hand-set rather than estimated, a reproducibility and validity weakness, but that is not a circularity. The Discussion also candidly flags that demand fairness alone can permit higher opt-out rates, showing the authors do not hide the metric's limitations. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained: the theoretical proposition is proven from axioms, and the simulation results are transparent evaluations of the chosen objective.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical bound is lightweight. The simulation results, however, rest on several hand-set parameters and strong behavioral assumptions, so the contribution is not a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (6)
  • Price sensitivity beta for income groups (insurance) = High 0.25, Middle 0.70, Low 0.825
    Hand-set in Table 1 to encode the qualitative claim that wealthier consumers are less price-elastic in insurance; no estimation or source provided.
  • Price sensitivity beta for income groups (credit) = High 3.00, Middle 2.70, Low 2.25
    Hand-set to encode the reverse ordering for credit; no estimation or source provided.
  • Marginal cost matrix mc_i,j = Table 1 values
    Risk-adjusted costs per income group and firm, chosen by authors as proxies; not estimated from claims data.
  • Base product utility alpha_j and outside option alpha_0 = not reported
    Appear in U_i,j = alpha_j - beta_i p_i,j and determine market shares, but no values are given in the paper.
  • Income group sizes = High 200, Middle 520, Low 280
    Population proportions used in simulations; claimed to follow Pew data but the exact split is a modeling choice.
  • Tax regularization weights lambda_ins and lambda_cred = 100 and 10
    Selected in Table 2; they control how close the learned policy stays to the linear baseline and affect the reported trade-offs.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Consumers choose via multinomial logit with utility linear in price
    Section 4.1 defines p_j|i = exp(U_i,j) / sum exp(...). No empirical validation of this demand system for insurance or credit.
  • domain assumption Firms maximize single-period expected profit and price dynamics converge to a Nash equilibrium
    Section 4.2 and Algorithm 1 use Powell derivative-free best responses but provide no convergence proof or equilibrium verification.
  • domain assumption Regulator can observe each firm's conditional choice probabilities Pr(F=j|A=i)
    Algorithm 1 assigns tax brackets from firm fairness f_j; the paper does not address measurement error, privacy, or strategic gaming of reported fairness.
  • domain assumption Demand fairness (opt-out demographic parity) is the fairness objective
    Definitions 1 and 2 choose this metric; Section 6 acknowledges it rewards equal exclusion, showing it is a value-laden modeling choice.
  • standard math Standard probability and triangle-inequality facts
    Used in the proof of Proposition 1 (Section 3.3) and Appendix B concentration inequalities.
  • ad hoc to paper Learned policy is restricted to B=20 brackets with [0,1] tax rates and an L1 penalty toward tau_base
    This policy class and interpretability prior are introduced for this paper, not derived from first principles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Balancing Profit and Fairness in Risk-Based Pricing Markets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VY2XFEG5

@misc{pith2026250600140,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Balancing Profit and Fairness in Risk-Based Pricing Markets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VY2XFEG5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00140}
}
abstract

Dynamic, risk-based pricing can systematically exclude vulnerable consumer groups from essential resources such as health insurance and consumer credit. We show that a regulator can realign private incentives with social objectives through a learned, interpretable tax schedule. First, we provide a formal proposition that bounding each firm's \emph{local} demographic gap implicitly bounds the \emph{global} opt-out disparity, motivating firm-level penalties. Building on this insight we introduce \texttt{MarketSim} -- an open-source, scalable simulator of heterogeneous consumers and profit-maximizing firms -- and train a reinforcement learning (RL) social planner (SP) that selects a bracketed fairness-tax while remaining close to a simple linear prior via an $\mathcal{L}_1$ regularizer. The learned policy is thus both transparent and easily interpretable. In two empirically calibrated markets, i.e., U.S. health-insurance and consumer-credit, our planner simultaneously raises demand-fairness by up to $16\%$ relative to unregulated Free Market while outperforming a fixed linear schedule in terms of social welfare without explicit coordination. These results illustrate how AI-assisted regulation can convert a competitive social dilemma into a win-win equilibrium, providing a principled and practical framework for fairness-aware market oversight.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00140 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Percentage of working-age adults without health [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Perfect global fairness does not imply local fair￾ness. address global fairness explicitly, make global fairness im￾provements by deploying firm-level incentives? This chal￾lenge constitutes a mechanism design problem, which we formalize as an optimization problem in the following sec￾tion. 3.3 From Local to Global Fairness We first show that enforcing an ϵ–local–fairness constraint on each firm automatically bounds… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A dynamic-pricing market consisting of 3 agent types, each with their own optimization objective. The social planner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of policy generation across two dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mean consumer-group opt-out rates under multi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Mean wall-clock runtime per 10 rounds as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type 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.a...

  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 bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Achiam, J.; Held, D.; Tamar, A.; and Abbeel, P. 2017. Constrained policy optimization. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '17, 22--31. JMLR.org

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    American Medical Association . 2023. AMA identifies market leaders in health insurance. Accessed: 2025-04-19

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Barocas, S.; and Selbst, A. D. 2016. Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3): 671--732

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Becker, G. S. 1962. Irrational behavior and economic theory. Journal of political economy, 70(1): 1--13

    work page 1962

  7. [7]

    S.; et al

    Ben-Akiva, M.; McFadden, D.; Train, K.; Walker, J.; Bhat, C.; Bierlaire, M.; Bolduc, D.; Boersch-Supan, A.; Brownstone, D.; Bunch, D. S.; et al. 2002. Hybrid choice models: Progress and challenges. Marketing Letters, 13: 163--175

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    T.; Levinsohn, J

    Berry, S. T.; Levinsohn, J. A.; and Pakes, A. 1993. Automobile prices in market equilibrium: Part I and II

    work page 1993

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Bertoletti, L.; Borraz, F.; and Sanroman, G. 2024. Consumer Debt and Poverty: the Default Risk Gap. Technical report, GLO Discussion Paper

    2024

  2. [10]

    F.; and Trichakis, N

    Bertsimas, D.; Farias, V. F.; and Trichakis, N. 2011. The price of fairness. Operations research, 59(1): 17--31

    2011

  3. [11]

    M.; Horta c su, A.; Oery, A.; and Williams, K

    Betancourt, J. M.; Horta c su, A.; Oery, A.; and Williams, K. R. 2022. Dynamic price competition: Theory and evidence from airline markets. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research

    2022

  4. [12]

    Chopra, R. 2024. Statement by CFPB Director Rohit Chopra on the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s Nonbank Mortgage Company Report. Accessed: 2025-04-21

    2024

  5. [13]

    C.; Elmachtoub, A

    Cohen, M. C.; Elmachtoub, A. N.; and Lei, X. 2022. Price discrimination with fairness constraints. Management Science, 68(12): 8536--8552

    2022

  6. [14]

    C.; Miao, S.; and Wang, Y

    Cohen, M. C.; Miao, S.; and Wang, Y. 2021. Dynamic pricing with fairness constraints. Available at SSRN 3930622

    2021

  7. [15]

    Das, S.; Dhamal, S.; Ghalme, G.; Jain, S.; and Gujar, S. 2022. Individual fairness in feature-based pricing for monopoly markets. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, 486--495. PMLR

    2022

  8. [16]

    Dwork, C.; Hardt, M.; Pitassi, T.; Reingold, O.; and Zemel, R. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference, 214--226

    2012

  9. [17]

    Fleurbaey, M. 2008. Fairness, responsibility, and welfare. OUP Oxford

    2008

  10. [18]

    Fout, H.; Li, G.; Palim, M.; and Pan, Y. 2020. Credit risk of low income mortgages. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 80: 103390

    2020

  11. [19]

    Gallego, G.; Topaloglu, H.; et al. 2019. Revenue management and pricing analytics, volume 209. Springer

    2019

  12. [20]

    Garc a, J.; and Fern \'a ndez, F. 2015. A comprehensive survey on safe reinforcement learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(1): 1437--1480

    2015

  13. [21]

    Haarnoja, T.; Zhou, A.; Hartikainen, K.; Tucker, G.; Ha, S.; Tan, J.; Kumar, V.; Zhu, H.; Gupta, A.; Abbeel, P.; and Levine, S. 2018. Soft Actor-Critic Algorithms and Applications

    2018

  14. [22]

    Kallus, N.; and Zhou, A. 2021. Fairness, welfare, and equity in personalized pricing. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 296--314

    2021

  15. [23]

    N.; and Lindstrom, R

    Keisler-Starkey, K.; Bunch, L. N.; and Lindstrom, R. 2024. Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2023

    2024

  16. [24]

    Lee, S.; Illia, A.; and Lawson-Body, A. 2011. Perceived price fairness of dynamic pricing. Industrial Management & Data Systems

    2011

  17. [25]

    Maestre, R.; Duque, J.; Rubio, A.; and Ar \'e valo, J. 2019. Reinforcement learning for fair dynamic pricing. In Intelligent Systems and Applications: Proceedings of the 2018 Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys) Volume 1, 120--135. Springer

    2019

  18. [26]

    Martinez, M. E. 2022. QuickStats: Percentage of Uninsured Adults Aged 18–64 Years, by Race and Selected Hispanic Origin Subgroup — National Health Interview Survey, United States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022, 71(834)

    2022

  19. [27]

    McCann, A. 2025. Credit Card Market Share by Issuer. Accessed: 2025-04-19

    2025

  20. [28]

    McFadden, D. 1972. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior

    1972

  21. [29]

    J.; Bunn, T

    Nicholson, V. J.; Bunn, T. L.; and Costich, J. F. 2008. Disparities in work-related injuries associated with worker compensation coverage status. American journal of industrial medicine, 51(6): 393--398

    2008

  22. [30]

    Pew Research Center . 2024. Are you in the American middle class? [Accessed: 2025-02-28]

    2024

  23. [31]

    Powell, M. J. 1964. An efficient method for finding the minimum of a function of several variables without calculating derivatives. The computer journal, 7(2): 155--162

    1964

  24. [32]

    Schlosser, R.; and Boissier, M. 2018. Dynamic pricing under competition on online marketplaces: A data-driven approach. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 705--714

    2018

  25. [33]

    A.; and Rosen, H

    Small, K. A.; and Rosen, H. S. 1981. Applied welfare economics with discrete choice models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 105--130

    1981

  26. [34]

    Census Bureau

    U.S. Census Bureau . 2023. Homeownership by Race and Ethnicity of Householder. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/homeownership-by-race-and-ethnicity-of-householder.html. Interactive visualization, released September 28, 2023. Accessed April 29, 2025

    2023

  27. [35]

    E.; Haberland, M.; Reddy, T.; Cournapeau, D.; Burovski, E.; Peterson, P.; Weckesser, W.; Bright, J.; et al

    Virtanen, P.; Gommers, R.; Oliphant, T. E.; Haberland, M.; Reddy, T.; Cournapeau, D.; Burovski, E.; Peterson, P.; Weckesser, W.; Bright, J.; et al. 2020. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature methods, 17(3): 261--272

    2020

  28. [36]

    V.; and Srinivasan, K

    Wang, Q.; Huang, Y.; Singh, P. V.; and Srinivasan, K. 2023. Algorithms, artificial intelligence and simple rule based pricing. Available at SSRN 4144905

    2023

  29. [37]

    C.; and Socher, R

    Zheng, S.; Trott, A.; Srinivasa, S.; Naik, N.; Gruesbeck, M.; Parkes, D. C.; and Socher, R. 2020. The ai economist: Improving equality and productivity with ai-driven tax policies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13332

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhu, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Gu, J.; and Fu, Q. 2023. Neoliberalization and inequality: disparities in access to affordable housing in urban Canada 1981--2016. Housing Studies, 38(10): 1860--1887

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.