Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Competitive Bundle Trading

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An online retailer who must both buy and sell bundles of goods can guarantee profit within a logarithmic factor of a hindsight-optimal plan, as long as the comparison pays suppliers (1+ε) more and storage is large enough.

desk verdict New two-sided bundle trading model with a promising algorithm, but the proof of the main competitive-ratio theorem has a real gap in Lemma 3.8 and the randomized lower bound is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23047 v1 pith:JIL22B5U submitted 2025-07-30 cs.DS cs.GT

Yossi Azar , Niv Buchbinder , Roie Levin , Or Vardi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DScs.GT MSC 68W2768W4091B26
keywords onlinealgorithmscompetitiveanalysisbundletradingdynamicpricingprimal-dualmethodsincentivecompatibilityinventoryconstraintslowerbounds
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

An online retailer who must both buy and sell bundles of goods only as suppliers and customers arrive previously had no general competitive algorithm beyond the sell-only case. This paper establishes that with modest resource augmentation, comparing against an offline plan that pays (1+ε) more to suppliers, the full buy-and-sell bundle trading problem admits logarithmic competitive ratios: O((1/ε) log(2dv)) deterministically when valuations are known, and O((1/ε) log(2dv/ε)) in expectation by a randomized incentive-compatible mechanism when valuations are private. Both guarantees require the inventory of each item type to be at least a constant times (1/ε) log(2dv), or log(2dv/ε), times the number of items of that type appearing in any bundle. The paper also proves nearly matching lower bounds showing the logarithmic ratio is tight up to constants and that both resource augmentation and the large-inventory condition are necessary.

What carries the argument

The central object is the inventory-dependent price update $$x_t^i = \frac{1}{d\mu}\left(\exp\!\left(\frac{1-r_t^i}{w_i}\,\eta\right)-1\right),$$ where $r_t^i$ is current inventory of item $i$, $w_i$ is its capacity, $d$ is the largest customer bundle size, and $\mu, \eta$ are parameters. As inventory of item $i$ drops, its base price per unit rises exponentially, and prices fall when suppliers restock the item. The proof machinery is dual fitting: the paper builds a feasible solution to the dual of an LP relaxation of offline profit using exactly these prices, then uses a weighted KL-divergence telescoping sum and the large-inventory assumption to show the dual value is at most $O(\eta/\epsilon)$ times the algorithm's profit.

What would settle it

Run Algorithm 1 on a single-item-type instance satisfying the large-inventory assumption with exponentially decreasing supplier values followed by one high-value customer; if the algorithm's profit divided by the benchmark profit ever exceeds C(1/ε) log(2dv) for the claimed constant C, the theorem's bound is false. Conversely, on the same family with inventory w below c/ε log v, the paper predicts every deterministic algorithm has unbounded competitive ratio, so any deterministic algorithm with finite competitive ratio on that family would refute the threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper constructs two algorithms, Algorithm 1 for known valuations and Algorithm 2 for unknown valuations, and proves they are competitive against an optimal offline fractional solution whose supplier values are inflated by (1+ε). The algorithms maintain an inventory-dependent base price per unit for each item type: the price is zero when inventory is full and grows exponentially as inventory empties, and the price of a bundle is the sum of its item prices. Customer willingness to pay is compared to this bundle price, while supplier offers are accepted at a (1+ε)-discounted price. In the unknown-valuation setting, a randomly sampled additive threshold is added to customer prices; the inventory update occurs even when the threshold prevents an actual sale, which makes the mechanism incentive compatible without being a pure posted-price mechanism. The correctness argument dual-fits the algorithm's profit to a linear program whose dual is feasible by the algorithm's own price sequence, and weak duality then bounds the optimal offline profit by O(η/ε) times the algorithm's profit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that each item type has enough storage: its inventory cap must be at least a constant times (1/ε) log(2dv), or (1/ε) log(2dv/ε), times the number of such items appearing in any bundle; if storage is comparable to bundle sizes, the logarithmic guarantee no longer applies and the paper shows no deterministic algorithm has finite competitive ratio.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A retailer can operate a two-sided online bundle market and still earn within the stated logarithmic factor of a hindsight-optimal plan, provided storage is proportionally large.
  • The incentive-compatible version means self-interested customers and suppliers cannot profit by misreporting valuations, and the expected-profit guarantee survives strategic behavior.
  • The lower bounds imply the (1+ε) supplier-cost advantage is not a technical convenience: without it, no algorithm has finite competitive ratio, even for a single item type.
  • The inventory threshold is sharp in the deterministic case: below a constant factor of (1/ε) log(dv) times bundle size, no deterministic algorithm has bounded competitive ratio, so the theorem's assumption is essentially necessary.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's scope, the random-additive-threshold device could be repurposed as a generic tool for converting profit-maximizing online algorithms into incentive-compatible ones with only an O(log v) penalty in parameters.
  • The open question the paper flags, whether randomization can beat the deterministic inventory threshold, is testable by trying to extend the randomized mechanism to small inventories; the sell-only analogue has resisted this for thirty years.
  • The LIFO accounting used in the lower bounds suggests a general template for proving impossibility in profit-maximizing online inventory problems: charge each unit with its acquisition cost and show sales below that cost cannot profit.
  • One could test the dual-fitting framework on richer constraints, such as matroid or multi-warehouse inventory constraints, by checking whether an analogous KL-divergence telescoping identity still bounds the dual value.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies an online trading problem in which a retailer buys bundles of goods from arriving suppliers and sells bundles to arriving customers, subject to per-item inventory capacities, with the goal of maximizing profit. The authors consider both a known-valuation setting and an unknown-valuation, incentive-compatible setting. They propose exponential-weight-update dynamic pricing algorithms and analyze them via a primal-dual framework: an LP upper bounds the optimal offline fractional profit (with supplier values inflated by 1+epsilon), and the analysis constructs a feasible dual solution whose value is charged to the algorithm's profit. The claimed results are O((1/epsilon) log(dv))-competitiveness in the known case and O((1/epsilon) log(dv/epsilon))-competitiveness in the unknown case, subject to a large-inventory assumption, plus almost matching lower bounds and an inventory-size threshold below which no deterministic algorithm has finite competitive ratio.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a substantial contribution: it appears to be the first competitive online algorithm for two-sided bundle trading with inventory constraints, extending the classical sell-only line of work to a profit objective with both buying and selling. The dual-fitting approach is a natural and potentially influential generalization of earlier customer-only analyses, and the lower bounds (including the necessity of resource augmentation and the large-inventory threshold) are valuable. The paper is also commendable for giving explicit, checkable claims (Observation 3.5, Claim 3.9, Claim 3.10) and for constructing the dual solution explicitly. However, as detailed below, a load-bearing step in the proof of the main upper bound is not justified, so the central claim is not currently established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Lemma 3.8 (final displayed equality)] The final displayed equality in Lemma 3.8 is not established. The step claims that O(eta/epsilon) * [sum over T'_cust of ((1-epsilon/4)P^t + epsilon v^t/eta + 1/mu) - sum over T'_supp of P^t/(1+epsilon)] equals O(eta/epsilon) * [sum v^t - sum v^t]. The proof justifies this only by P^t <= v^t for customers and P^t >= (1+epsilon)v^t for suppliers, but those inequalities do not control the extra positive terms epsilon v^t/eta + 1/mu - epsilon P^t/4. With the known-valuation choice mu=1, the term 1/mu = 1 per customer trade is not charged to any revenue. For example, take a single item with v=2, mu=1, small epsilon, and inventory on the boundary of Assumption 3.2. A customer buys one unit at price 1, raising the price to roughly 1+epsilon/4; a supplier then sells one unit back at P/(1+epsilon), restoring the price. The algorithm's profit per such cycle is about 3epsilon/4, while the bracket in Lemma 3.8 is about 1 + O(epsilon). Hence bracket/profit = Omega(1/epsilon), contradicting the claimed equality with the same O(eta/epsilon) factor. Because Theorem 3.3 and the known-valuation part of Theorem 3.1 rely on this equality, the main upper bound is not proven as written.
  2. [Section 3.2 (application of Theorem 3.3 to Algorithm 2)] The incentive-compatible result inherits the gap in Lemma 3.8. The upper bound on OPT used in Section 3.2 is precisely Theorem 3.3, whose proof contains the unjustified final step. For the specific parameters chosen in Algorithm 2 (mu = 32/epsilon * (1+log v) and the corresponding eta), the problematic inequality 1/mu <= epsilon/4 - epsilon/eta might hold, so the final step may be repairable in that parameter regime. But the paper currently states and proves Theorem 3.3 for all mu >= 1 and eta >= 1+log(1+vdmu), and it does not verify the needed inequality for the parameters actually used in Section 3.2. Thus the unknown-valuation result is also not rigorously established as written.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Lemma 3.14 proof] In the proof of Lemma 3.14, the text reads "max{1,P^t} <= v^t <= max{1,P^t} + 20 = 1 + max{1,P^t}"; the "20" appears to be a typo and should be "1".
  2. [Observation 3.4] Observation 3.4 states that item prices are "always positive," but the formula for x^t_i gives 0 when inventory is full; the statement should say "nonnegative."
  3. [Section 4.1 (lower bound construction)] In Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3, each time step is described as having w suppliers arrive and the algorithm "may purchase some fraction of items from the suppliers," which appears to allow buying more than one bundle per time step. This is a relaxation to a stronger fractional algorithm and is acceptable as a lower bound, but the text should explicitly state that this is a relaxation; otherwise it conflicts with the model's one-bundle-per-step constraint.
  4. [Theorem 3.1 / Assumption 3.2] The theorem statement says the inventory must be at least (c/epsilon) log(2vd) times the bundle size for "some large enough constant c," while Assumption 3.2 uses 8eta/epsilon with eta = 1+log(1+vd). The paper should state the explicit implied constant or clarify how c relates to eta, to make the quantitative threshold reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dual-fitting proof is self-contained; the flagged Lemma 3.8 issue is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's competitive-ratio proof is self-contained: it explicitly writes the primal LP (3.2)-(3.6), writes its dual (3.7)-(3.9), constructs a dual solution from Algorithm 1's prices x_t, proves feasibility in Lemma 3.7, and bounds the dual objective in Lemma 3.8 using algebraic manipulations, Claim 3.9, Claim 3.10, and weak duality. No parameter is fitted to the claimed bound; mu, eta, and the inventory assumption are chosen to satisfy explicit inequalities (Assumption 3.2, eta >= 1 + log(1 + v d mu)), and their necessity is argued by independent lower bounds in Section 4. The citations to the same authors' earlier primal-dual work ([11], [10], [12], [7]) supply the toolkit or the dual-fitting perspective, but the specific LP, dual assignment, KL-divergence telescoping, and inventory-threshold lower bounds are derived in this paper and are externally checkable. The skeptical note about Lemma 3.8's final equality is a potential correctness gap -- the displayed bracket may not be bounded by net profit from the cited inequalities alone -- but that is an algebraic proof gap, not a case of a prediction reducing to its input by construction. Accordingly, no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the large-inventory assumption, the (1+epsilon)-augmented benchmark, demand oracles, and full initial inventory; these are stated as assumptions, not derived. No new physical entities are introduced; the only tunable objects are the algorithm's parameters mu, eta, and delta.

free parameters (3)
  • mu = 1 (known valuation); 32/epsilon * (1+log v) (unknown valuation)
    Algorithm parameter controlling the price scale; chosen to satisfy the dual-fitting inequalities.
  • eta = 1+log(1+vd) (known); 32(1+log(1+dv mu)) (unknown)
    Exponential growth rate of item prices; must satisfy eta >= 1+log(1+vd mu) and drives the large-inventory requirement.
  • delta = epsilon/8
    Probability parameter in the random threshold rho distribution; chosen to balance the revenue loss from the bidding phase.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The offline optimum is an optimal fractional LP solution with supplier costs inflated by (1+epsilon); weak duality bounds it.
    Definition of the benchmark; without resource augmentation the lower bound shows no finite ratio.
  • domain assumption Inventory capacity satisfies wi >= 8eta/epsilon * as,i for every item and every bundle.
    Assumption 3.2; needed for the exponential price updates and shown necessary by Theorem 4.1.
  • domain assumption Customers and suppliers have access to a demand oracle for their valuations.
    Used in Theorem 3.1 and Section 2; without a demand oracle, finding the utility-maximizing bundle is NP-hard in general.
  • domain assumption Initial inventory is full and free disposal is allowed.
    Section 2 sets r0_i = wi and allows discarding items; related work notes full initial inventory (or an additive constant) is needed.
  • standard math Weak duality and KL divergence nonnegativity.
    Used in Lemma 3.8 and Claim 3.10; standard background results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Competitive Bundle Trading." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JIL22B5U

@misc{pith2026250723047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Competitive Bundle Trading},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JIL22B5U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23047}
}
read the original abstract

A retailer is purchasing goods in bundles from suppliers and then selling these goods in bundles to customers; her goal is to maximize profit, which is the revenue obtained from selling goods minus the cost of purchasing those goods. In this paper, we study this general trading problem from the retailer's perspective, where both suppliers and customers arrive online. The retailer has inventory constraints on the number of goods from each type that she can store, and she must decide upon arrival of each supplier/customer which goods to buy/sell in order to maximize profit. We design an algorithm with logarithmic competitive ratio compared to an optimal offline solution. We achieve this via an exponential-weight-update dynamic pricing scheme, and our analysis dual fits the retailer's profit with respect to a linear programming formulation upper bounding the optimal offline profit. We prove (almost) matching lower bounds, and we also extend our result to an incentive compatible mechanism. Prior to our work, algorithms for trading bundles were known only for the special case of selling an initial inventory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23047 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the accounting scheme. We imagine the algorithm fills its inventory from left to right. By construction, the price at which the algorithm can fill any fraction of the j-th interval is at least v (1+ϵ) 2(j+1) . To conclude the proof, recall F is the final time step in which suppliers arrive, and the inventory of the algorithm before the arrival of the last w suppliers is yF . As the phase ends this me… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Reducing truth-telling online mechanisms to online optimization

    Baruch Awerbuch, Yossi Azar, and Adam Meyerson. Reducing truth-telling online mechanisms to online optimization. In Lawrence L. Larmore and Michel X. Goemans, editors, Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, June 9-11, 2003, San Diego, CA, USA , pages 503–510. ACM, 2003. → cited on page 3, 4

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Baruch Awerbuch, Yossi Azar, and Serge A. Plotkin. Throughput-competitive on-line routing. In 34th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science , pages 32–40. IEEE Computer Society, 1993. → cited on page 1, 2, 4 22

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Learning to maximize gains from trade in small markets

    Moshe Babaioff, Amitai Frey, and Noam Nisan. Learning to maximize gains from trade in small markets. In Dirk Bergemann, Robert Kleinberg, and Daniela Sab´ an, editors, Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2024, New Haven, CT, USA, July 8-11, 2024 , page 195. ACM, 2024. → cited on page 5

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Fair online bi- lateral trade

    Fran¸ cois Bachoc, Nicol` o Cesa-Bianchi, Tommaso Cesari, and Roberto Colomboni. Fair online bi- lateral trade. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS 2024, Vancouver, BC, Canada, December 10 - 15, 2024 , 2024. → cited on page 5

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Incentive compatible multi unit combinatorial auctions

    Yair Bartal, Rica Gonen, and Noam Nisan. Incentive compatible multi unit combinatorial auctions. In Joseph Y. Halpern and Moshe Tennenholtz, editors, Proceedings of the 9th Conference on The- oretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-2003), Bloomington, Indiana, USA, June 20-22, 2003 , pages 72–87. ACM, 2003. → cited on page 4

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    No-regret learning in bilateral trade via global budget balance

    Martino Bernasconi, Matteo Castiglioni, Andrea Celli, and Federico Fusco. No-regret learning in bilateral trade via global budget balance. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC 2024, page 247–258. Association for Computing Machinery, 2024. → cited on page 5

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Chasing positive bodies

    Sayan Bhattacharya, Niv Buchbinder, Roie Levin, and Thatchaphol Saranurak. Chasing positive bodies. In 64th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2023, Santa Cruz, CA, USA, November 6-9, 2023 , pages 1694–1714. IEEE, 2023. → cited on page 5

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    (almost) efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading

    Liad Blumrosen and Shahar Dobzinski. (almost) efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. Games Econ. Behav., 130:369–383, 2021. → cited on page 5

    work page 2021

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Online computation and competitive analysis

    Allan Borodin and Ran El-Yaniv. Online computation and competitive analysis . Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1998. → cited on page 4, 5

    1998

  2. [10]

    Incentive compatible mulit-unit combinatorial auctions: A primal dual approach

    Niv Buchbinder and Rica Gonen. Incentive compatible mulit-unit combinatorial auctions: A primal dual approach. Algorithmica, 72(1):167–190, 2015. → cited on page 3, 4

    2015

  3. [11]

    Improved bounds for online routing and packing via a primal-dual approach

    Niv Buchbinder and Joseph Naor. Improved bounds for online routing and packing via a primal-dual approach. In 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 2006), 21- 24 October 2006, Berkeley, California, USA, Proceedings , pages 293–304. IEEE Computer Society,

    2006

  4. [12]

    The design of competitive online algorithms via a primal-dual approach

    Niv Buchbinder and Joseph Naor. The design of competitive online algorithms via a primal-dual approach. Found. Trends Theor. Comput. Sci. , 3(2-3):93–263, 2009. → cited on page 3

    2009

  5. [13]

    Bilateral trade: A regret minimization perspective

    Nicol` o Cesa-Bianchi, Tommaso Cesari, Roberto Colomboni, Federico Fusco, and Stefano Leonardi. Bilateral trade: A regret minimization perspective. Math. Oper. Res., 49(1):171–203, 2024. → cited on page 5

    2024

  6. [14]

    Trading prophets

    Jos´ e Correa, Andr´ es Cristi, Paul Duetting, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Jan Olkowski, and Kevin Schewior. Trading prophets. In Kevin Leyton-Brown, Jason D. Hartline, and Larry Samuelson, ed- itors, Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, EC 2023, ...

    2023

  7. [15]

    Dynamic pricing and learning: historical origins, current research, and new directions

    Arnoud V Den Boer. Dynamic pricing and learning: historical origins, current research, and new directions. Surveys in operations research and management science , 20(1):1–18, 2015. → cited on page 3

    2015

  8. [16]

    Truthful randomized mechanisms for com- binatorial auctions

    Shahar Dobzinski, Noam Nisan, and Michael Schapira. Truthful randomized mechanisms for com- binatorial auctions. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. , 78(1):15–25, 2012. → cited on page 4

    2012

  9. [17]

    Karp, and G

    Ran El-Yaniv, Amos Fiat, Richard M. Karp, and G. Turpin. Optimal search and one-way trading online algorithms. Algorithmica, 30(1):101–139, 2001. → cited on page 5

    2001

  10. [18]

    Combinatorial auctions via posted prices

    Michal Feldman, Nick Gravin, and Brendan Lucier. Combinatorial auctions via posted prices. In Piotr Indyk, editor, Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete 23 Algorithms, SODA 2015, San Diego, CA, USA, January 4-6, 2015 , pages 123–135. SIAM, 2015....

    2015

  11. [19]

    Stanley P. Y. Fung. Optimal online two-way trading with bounded number of transactions. Algo- rithmica, 81(11-12):4238–4257, 2019. → cited on page 5

    2019

  12. [20]

    Stanley P. Y. Fung. Online two-way trading: Randomization and advice. Theor. Comput. Sci. , 856:41–50, 2021. → cited on page 5

    2021

  13. [21]

    Revenue Management and Pricing Analytics

    Guillermo Gallego and Huseyin Topaloglu. Revenue Management and Pricing Analytics . Springer New York, NY, 2019. → cited on page 5

    2019

  14. [22]

    van Ryzin

    Guillermo Gallego and Garrett J. van Ryzin. A multiproduct dynamic pricing problem and its applications to network yield management. Oper. Res., 45(1):24–41, 1997. → cited on page 5

    1997

  15. [23]

    Reoptimization and self-adjusting price control for network revenue management

    Stefanus Jasin. Reoptimization and self-adjusting price control for network revenue management. Oper. Res., 62(5):1168–1178, 2014. → cited on page 5

    2014

  16. [24]

    Truthful and near-optimal mechanism design via linear program- ming

    Ron Lavi and Chaitanya Swamy. Truthful and near-optimal mechanism design via linear program- ming. J. ACM, 58(6):25:1–25:24, 2011. → cited on page 4

    2011

  17. [25]

    On-line resource management with application to routing and scheduling

    Stefano Leonardi and Alberto Marchetti-Spaccamela. On-line resource management with application to routing and scheduling. Algorithmica, 24(1):29–49, 1999. → cited on page 1, 4

    1999

  18. [26]

    Bin Li and Steven C. H. Hoi. Online portfolio selection: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 46(3):35:1– 35:36, 2014. → cited on page 5

    2014

  19. [27]

    Online contention resolution schemes for network revenue management and combinatorial auctions

    Will Ma, Calum MacRury, and Jingwei Zhang. Online contention resolution schemes for network revenue management and combinatorial auctions. CoRR, abs/2403.05378, 2024. → cited on page 5

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    An approximation algorithm for network revenue management under nonstationary arrivals

    Yuhang Ma, Paat Rusmevichientong, Mika Sumida, and Huseyin Topaloglu. An approximation algorithm for network revenue management under nonstationary arrivals. Oper. Res., 68(3):834– 855, 2020. → cited on page 5

    2020

  21. [29]

    Dynamic pricing strategies for multiproduct revenue management problems

    Constantinos Maglaras and Joern Meissner. Dynamic pricing strategies for multiproduct revenue management problems. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. , 8(2):136–148, 2006. → cited on page 5

    2006

  22. [30]

    Myerson and Mark A

    Roger B. Myerson and Mark A. Satterthwaite. Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. Journal of Economic Theory , 29(2):265–281, 1983. → cited on page 5

    1983

  23. [31]

    Combinatorial stationary prophet inequalities

    Neel Patel and David Wajc. Combinatorial stationary prophet inequalities. In David P. Woodruff, editor, Proceedings of the 2024 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2024, Alexandria, V A, USA, January 7-10, 2024 , pages 4605–4630. SIAM, 2024. → cited on page 5

    2024

  24. [32]

    Trading prophets: How to trade multiple stocks optimally

    Surbhi Rajput, Ashish Chiplunkar, and Rohit Vaish. Trading prophets: How to trade multiple stocks optimally. In Proceedings of the SIAM Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA25) , pages 238–252, 2025. → cited on page 4

    2025

  25. [33]

    Beyond the Worst-Case Analysis of Algorithms

    Tim Roughgarden, editor. Beyond the Worst-Case Analysis of Algorithms . Cambridge University Press, 2020. → cited on page 2 24

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.