Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 90 references

A Note on Market Segmentation and Bertrand Competition

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bertrand competition yields zero profit under any market segmentation profile when firms are finite and consumer willingness to pay is bounded.

desk verdict Useful benchmark result—zero profit under any segmentation with at least two firms and bounded WTP—but the written theorem overclaims without n≥2, and one proof equality should be an inequality. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07918 v1 pith:Q2EOZCWM submitted 2026-08-08 econ.TH

Zhang Xu , Mingsheng Zhang , Wei Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification econ.TH MSC 91B5491A1091B26
keywords personalizedpricingBertrandcompetitionmarketsegmentationzeroequilibriumprofitboundedwillingnesstopayNashpricediscrimination
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

Market segmentation and personalized pricing are often expected to let firms extract surplus and soften competition. This note claims that in homogeneous-good Bertrand competition with finitely many firms and consumers whose willingness to pay is bounded, no market segmentation profile can produce positive equilibrium profit: in every Nash equilibrium every firm earns zero. The argument fixes an equilibrium, looks at the highest transaction price that occurs with positive probability, and shows that undercutting that price by a small amount is strictly profitable unless the highest price is already zero. If correct, the result says that the classic Bertrand zero-profit logic survives even when firms can tailor prices to a finely segmented consumer base.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equilibrium transaction-price distribution $G$, which describes the probability that the lowest price among the firms equals a given value, after integrating over consumer willingness to pay and the market-segmentation signals. Its essential supremum $a$ is the highest price that can occur with positive probability. The argument works because $G$ is atomless at a suitably chosen $\hat{a}\in(a/n,a]$, making the mass of transaction prices $\geq\hat{a}$ equal to the mass strictly above $\hat{a}$; this identity lets a single firm undercut to $\hat{a}$ and capture the entire remaining market, beating the bound $a/n$ on any one firm's share of the residual profit.

What would settle it

Run the model with one firm: with consumer willingness to pay uniform on $[0,1]$, the monopolist charges a positive price and earns positive profit, so $Q_1>0$, contradicting the theorem as stated for all finite $n$. For the intended $n\ge 2$ case, a two-firm counterexample would be a segmentation profile and a Nash equilibrium in which the transaction-price distribution has positive essential supremum; the theorem says such an equilibrium cannot exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's Theorem 1 states that for any finite set of firms, any measurable market segmentation profile, and any Nash equilibrium of the induced pricing game, each firm's equilibrium profit is zero, given that consumer willingness to pay lies in a bounded interval $[0,\bar{\omega}]$. The proof fixes an equilibrium and forms the distribution $G$ of the transaction price, i.e. the minimum price that actually clears in a market segment. Letting $a$ be the essential supremum of $G$, the goal is to show $a=0$. Suppose $a>0$; one can find a price $\hat{a}\in(a/n,a]$ at which $G$ has no atom, so the mass of transactions at minimum price at least $\hat{a}$ equals the mass at minimum price strictly above $\hat{a}$. Some firm earns at most $a/n$ of the mass in $[\hat{a},a]$, and by shifting all of its pricing mass above $\hat{a}$ down to $\hat{a}$ it captures all that demand at a price strictly above $a/n$, a profitable deviation. Hence $a=0$, so transaction prices are zero almost everywhere and profits vanish.

Load-bearing premise

The theorem needs at least two firms: the proof's key interval is empty when n=1, and a single firm facing consumers with bounded willingness to pay can charge a positive price and earn positive profit, so the stated 'finite numbers of firms' must really mean 'at least two firms'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every Nash equilibrium has zero profit for every firm, so no equilibrium can feature a positive price on any set of consumer types of positive measure.
  • Market segmentation alone cannot create monopoly rents in this setting; even finely personalized information leaves firms competing down to marginal cost.
  • The zero-profit conclusion holds under the Bayes correlated equilibrium interpretation, extending the result beyond independent private signals to correlated information structures.
  • Positive equilibrium profit would require unbounded willingness to pay; with a finite choke price the undercutting argument always forces transaction prices to zero.
  • The theorem holds for every measurable segmentation profile, so the conclusion does not depend on a particular division of consumers.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The theorem as worded covers all finite n, but the proof needs n≥2; the n=1 monopolist case can earn positive profit, so the statement should carry an explicit at-least-two-firms assumption.
  • A binding price floor above a/n would break the undercutting deviation, so the zero-profit conclusion likely fails in markets with legal minimum prices or price commitments.
  • Capacity constraints or convex costs would limit how much demand an undercutter can serve, so the result probably does not extend to settings where a single firm cannot absorb the whole market.
  • The essential-supremum technique is a general recipe: in any homogeneous-good Bertrand environment where a firm can undercut and serve all demand, the equilibrium transaction price must collapse to the lowest possible level.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies Bertrand competition with homogeneous goods, a finite number of firms, a unit mass of consumers with bounded willingness to pay, and an arbitrary market segmentation profile. Theorem 1 claims that in every Nash equilibrium, every firm's expected profit is zero. The proof defines the essential supremum a of the transaction-price distribution G, chooses a point â in (a/n, a] at which G has no atom, derives an identity from the atomlessness of G, constructs a downward deviation to â for a firm whose profit is at most 1/n of the total, and shows this deviation is strictly profitable, forcing a=0.

Significance. If the theorem is corrected to explicitly require at least two firms, the result is a clean and surprising benchmark: market segmentation does not create positive equilibrium profits in homogeneous-good Bertrand competition when willingness to pay is bounded. The proof is self-contained, does not rely on numerical computation, and connects the result to Jann and Schottmüller (2015) and to Bayes correlated equilibrium. These are genuine strengths. However, the manuscript as written overclaims by including the one-firm case, for which the theorem is false.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2, Theorem 1] The theorem as stated covers 'finite numbers of firms', which includes n=1. For n=1 the model is a monopoly, and a monopolist can earn strictly positive equilibrium profit, for example by pricing at the top of the support when there is positive mass at that point; this directly contradicts Q_i ≡ 0. The proof also requires choosing â in (a/n, a], which is empty when n=1. The abstract and Theorem 1 must explicitly assume n ≥ 2 (or 'at least two firms').
  2. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 1, after Eq. (2)] The equality '= âG((â,∞)) = âG([â,a])' is not justified. The first term of the deviation profit equals â times the measure of the event {ω ≥ â, all p_j > â}, whereas G((â,∞)) is the measure of {min_j p_j > â, ω ≥ min_j p_j}. The former relaxes the condition ω ≥ min_j p_j to ω ≥ â, so the two are not generally equal. The equality should be replaced by '≥ âG((â,∞))', and hence '≥ âG([â,a])'. This weaker inequality is still sufficient to make the deviation strictly profitable because â > a/n and G([â,a]) > 0, so the proof can be repaired without changing the conclusion for n ≥ 2.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, model setup] The consumer type space is defined as Ω = [0, ω], but the proof later uses both [0,ω] and [0, ¯ω]; use a single consistent symbol for the upper bound of willingness to pay.
  2. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 1] In the inequality '≤ ¯aG([â,a])' the symbol ¯a is undefined; the intended bound is '≤ a G([â,a])' because the integration is over p ∈ [â,a].
  3. [Section 2, proof of Theorem 1] The phrase 'G is atomless in â' is informal; write 'G({â}) = 0' or 'G has no atom at â' for precision.
  4. [Section 1] The phrase 'affirmative negative answer' is confusing; the intended meaning appears to be simply 'a negative answer'.
  5. [Section 3] The term 'Bayesian Correlated Equilibrium' should be 'Bayes correlated equilibrium' to match the terminology of Bergemann and Morris (2016).
  6. [Throughout] The phrase 'finite numbers of firms' should be 'a finite number of firms' for grammatical correctness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theorem is derived self-contained from the model primitives.

full rationale

The proof of Theorem 1 constructs a deviation strategy and compares profits using only the model's own definitions, namely the transaction price distribution G, the payoff function q_i, and the Nash equilibrium inequality. It does not fit any parameter to data, does not rename an empirical pattern, and does not invoke an external uniqueness theorem. The citations to Bergemann and Morris and to Jann and Schottmüller are contextual, used for interpretation and related results, not as load-bearing inputs to the proof. The notable defects, such as the theorem as stated omitting the necessary condition n ≥ 2 and a possible typographical issue in the deviation-profit comparison, are correctness or exposition errors rather than circularity, because they do not make the conclusion an input to its own derivation. The core argument is fully self-contained.

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

No free parameters or invented entities. The central claim rests on the standard Bertrand allocation rule, unit demand with bounded WTP, zero marginal cost, and an unstated n ≥ 2 assumption. No fitting or calibration is involved.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption There are at least two firms (n ≥ 2).
    The theorem and proof require n > 1; for n = 1 the claim is false. The paper only states 'finite numbers of firms' and never excludes the monopoly case.
  • domain assumption Standard Bertrand allocation rule: a firm charging strictly below all rivals serves the whole market, so q_i = min price.
    Property (1) implies this: if p_i is the unique minimum and p_i ≤ ω, every other firm has p_j > min, so q_j = 0 and sum q_j = min; the proof uses this to set q_i(â, p_-i, ω) = â.
  • domain assumption Consumers have unit demand and willingness to pay bounded by ar ω.
    The model assumes WTP ω ∈ [0, ar ω] and a unit of consumers; unbounded WTP is flagged by the authors as the open case where a Folk Theorem may hold.
  • domain assumption Firms have zero marginal cost, so profit equals revenue.
    Property (1) treats price as profit with no cost parameter; used throughout the proof.
  • standard math Measurability and integration assumptions for mixed strategies and segmentation.
    The proof uses Fubini and sigma-finite measure facts to choose an atomless point â and to interchange integrals; these are standard but unstated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Note on Market Segmentation and Bertrand Competition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2EOZCWM

@misc{pith2026260807918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Note on Market Segmentation and Bertrand Competition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2EOZCWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07918}
}
read the original abstract

In this note, we show that equilibrium profit is zero in Bertrand competition with a finite number of firms and consumers whose willingness to pay are bounded, under any market segmentation profile.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2026 , abstract =

    Calvano, Emilio and Calzolari, Giacomo and Denicolo, Vincenzo and Pastorello, Sergio , title =. 2026 , abstract =

    2026

  2. [2]

    Algorithmic collusion: where are we and where should we be going? , year =

    Abada, Ibrahim and Harrington Jr, Joseph E and Lambin, Xavier and Meylahn, Janusz M , journal =. Algorithmic collusion: where are we and where should we be going? , year =

  3. [3]

    The pitfalls of pricing algorithms: Be mindful of how they can hurt your brand , year =

    Bertini, Marco and Koenigsberg, Oded , journal =. The pitfalls of pricing algorithms: Be mindful of how they can hurt your brand , year =

  4. [4]

    and Pastorello, Sergio , journal =

    Calvano, Emilio and Calzolari, Giacomo and Denicolò, Vincenzo and Harrington, Joseph E. and Pastorello, Sergio , journal =. Protecting consumers from collusive prices due to AI , year =. doi:10.1126/science.abe3796 , type =

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abe3796

  5. [5]

    Market Segmentation Through Information , year =

    Elliott, Matthew and Galeotti, Andrea and Koh, Andrew and Li, Wenhao , journal =. Market Segmentation Through Information , year =. doi:10.1093/restud/rdag067 , type =

    work page doi:10.1093/restud/rdag067

  6. [6]

    American Economic Review , Volume =

    Rhodes, Andrew and Zhou, Jidong , Title =. American Economic Review , Volume =. 2024 , Month =. doi:10.1257/aer.20221524 , URL =

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.20221524 2024

  7. [7]

    2022 , abstract =

    Epivent, Andréa and Lambin, Xavier , month = aug, title =. 2022 , abstract =. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4227229 , file =

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4227229 2022

  8. [8]

    Artificial intelligence: Can seemingly collusive outcomes be avoided? , year =

    Abada, Ibrahim and Lambin, Xavier , journal =. Artificial intelligence: Can seemingly collusive outcomes be avoided? , year =. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4623 , file =

    arXiv 2022

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    DEVELOPING COMPETITION LAW FOR COLLUSION BY AUTONOMOUS ARTIFICIAL AGENTS , year =

    Harrington, Joseph E , journal =. DEVELOPING COMPETITION LAW FOR COLLUSION BY AUTONOMOUS ARTIFICIAL AGENTS , year =. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhy016 , file =

    doi

  2. [10]

    Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Pricing, and Collusion , year =

    Calvano, Emilio and Calzolari, Giacomo and Denicolò, Vincenzo and Pastorello, Sergio , journal =. Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Pricing, and Collusion , year =. doi:10.1257/aer.20190623 , file =

    doi

  3. [11]

    Algorithmic Collusion with Imperfect Monitoring , year =

    Calvano, Emilio and Calzolari, Giacomo and Denicolò, Vincenzo and Pastorello, Sergio , journal =. Algorithmic Collusion with Imperfect Monitoring , year =. doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2021.102712 , file =

    2021

  4. [12]

    International Journal of Industrial Organization , volume=

    Algorithmic collusion: Genuine or spurious? , author=. International Journal of Industrial Organization , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  5. [13]

    Journal of Economics & Management Strategy , year=

    The Impact of Artificial Intelligence Design on Pricing , author=. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy , year=

  6. [14]

    AEA Papers and Proceedings , volume=

    Artificial Intelligence, Algorithm Design, and Pricing , author=. AEA Papers and Proceedings , volume=

  7. [15]

    Watkins, Christopher JCH and Dayan, Peter , journal=. Q-. 1992 , publisher=

    1992

  8. [16]

    Learning from

    Watkins, Christopher John Cornish Hellaby , year=. Learning from

  9. [17]

    Mitchell, Tom M , year=. Machine

  10. [18]

    Algorithmic Pricing and Liquidity in Securities Markets , year =

    Colliard, Jean-Edouard and Foucault, Thierry and Lovo, Stefano , journal =. Algorithmic Pricing and Liquidity in Securities Markets , year =

  11. [19]

    Working Paper , year=

    Channel Underlying AI Collusion , author=. Working Paper , year=

  12. [20]

    Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web , pages=

    An Empirical Analysis of Algorithmic Pricing on Amazon Marketplace , author=. Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web , pages=

  13. [21]

    Algorithmic Pricing and Competition: Empirical Evidence from the German Retail Gasoline Market , author=

  14. [22]

    International Journal of game theory , volume=

    Cooperative Games with Coalition Structures , author=. International Journal of game theory , volume=. 1974 , publisher=

    1974

  15. [23]

    Econometrica , pages=

    Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality , author=. Econometrica , pages=. 1987 , publisher=

    1987

  16. [24]

    Theory and Decision , volume=

    Five Legitimate Definitions of Correlated Equilibrium in Games with Incomplete Information , author=. Theory and Decision , volume=. 1993 , publisher=

    1993

  17. [25]

    Management Science , volume=

    Biform Games , author=. Management Science , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  18. [26]

    Theoretical Economics , volume=

    Bayes Correlated Equilibrium and the Comparison of Information Structures in Games , author=. Theoretical Economics , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  19. [27]

    The Bell System Technical Journal , volume=

    A Mathematical Theory of Communication , author=. The Bell System Technical Journal , volume=. 1948 , publisher=

    1948

  20. [28]

    Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages =

    Banchio, Martino and Skrzypacz, Andrzej , title =. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages =. 2022 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3490486.3538244 , abstract =

    2022

  21. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05946 , year=

    Artificial intelligence and spontaneous collusion , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.05946 , year=

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dou, Winston Wei and Goldstein, Itay and Ji, Yan , journal=

  23. [31]

    Econometrica , volume=

    Platform Design when Sellers Use Pricing Algorithms , author=. Econometrica , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  24. [32]

    The RAND Journal of Economics , volume=

    Autonomous Algorithmic Collusion: Q-Learning under Sequential Pricing , author=. The RAND Journal of Economics , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  25. [33]

    Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , volume=

    Q-Learning Agents in a Cournot Oligopoly Model , author=. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

    2008

  26. [34]

    2007 IEEE International Symposium on Approximate Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning , pages=

    A Theoretical Analysis of Cooperative Behavior in Multi-Agent Q-Learning , author=. 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Approximate Dynamic Programming and Reinforcement Learning , pages=. 2007 , organization=

    2007

  27. [35]

    Management Science , volume=

    Building Socially Intelligent AI Systems: Evidence from the Trust Game Using Artificial Agents with Deep Learning , author=. Management Science , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  28. [36]

    Bayesian

    Games with Incomplete Information Played by “Bayesian” Players Part II. Bayesian Equilibrium Points , author=. Management Science , volume=. 1968 , publisher=

    1968

  29. [37]

    Aaai/iaai , volume=

    Bayesian Q-Learning , author=. Aaai/iaai , volume=

  30. [38]

    Mathematische Annalen , volume=

    Zur Theorie Der Gesellschaftsspiele , author=. Mathematische Annalen , volume=. 1928 , publisher=

    1928

  31. [39]

    2007 , publisher=

    Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (60th Anniversary Commemorative Edition) , author=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  32. [40]

    AI Algorithms, Price Discrimination and Collusion: A Technological, Economic and Legal Perspective , year =

    Gautier, Axel and Ittoo, Ashwin and Van Cleynenbreugel, Pieter , journal =. AI Algorithms, Price Discrimination and Collusion: A Technological, Economic and Legal Perspective , year =. doi:10.1007/s10657-020-09662-6 , type =

    doi

  33. [41]

    Collusion by Algorithm: Does Better Demand Prediction Facilitate Coordination Between Sellers? , year =

    Miklós-Thal, Jeanine and Tucker, Catherine , journal =. Collusion by Algorithm: Does Better Demand Prediction Facilitate Coordination Between Sellers? , year =. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3287 , keywords =

    2019

  34. [42]

    Artificial

    Calvano, Emilio and Calzolari, Giacomo and Denicolò, Vincenzo and Pastorello, Sergio , journal =. Artificial. 2023 , file =

    2023

  35. [43]

    2022 , abstract =

    Bonelli, Maxime , month = nov, title =. 2022 , abstract =. doi:10.2139/ssrn.4362173 , keywords =

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    International Journal of Industrial Organization , volume=

    Market Segmentation and Collusive Behavior , author=. International Journal of Industrial Organization , volume=. 2007 , publisher=

    2007

  37. [45]

    Economics Letters , volume=

    Fighting Collusion by Permitting Price Discrimination , author=. Economics Letters , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  38. [46]

    On The Strategic Choice of Spatial Price Policy , year =

    Jacques-Francois Thisse and Xavier Vives , journal =. On The Strategic Choice of Spatial Price Policy , year =

  39. [47]

    Marketing Science , volume=

    Competitive Coupon Targeting , author=. Marketing Science , volume=. 1995 , publisher=

    1995

  40. [48]

    Marketing Science , volume=

    Individual Marketing with Imperfect Targetability , author=. Marketing Science , volume=. 2001 , publisher=

    2001

  41. [49]

    Journal of Political Economy , volume=

    Algorithmic pricing and competition: Empirical evidence from the German retail gasoline market , author=. Journal of Political Economy , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  42. [50]

    Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages=

    Learning, mutation, and long run equilibria in games , author=. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages=. 1993 , publisher=

    1993

  43. [51]

    Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages=

    The evolution of conventions , author=. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society , pages=. 1993 , publisher=

    1993

  44. [52]

    Games and Economic Behavior , volume=

    Reinforcement learning in a prisoner's dilemma , author=. Games and Economic Behavior , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  45. [53]

    Stochastic evolutionary game dynamics , year =

    Foster, Dean and Young, Peyton , journal =. Stochastic evolutionary game dynamics , year =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-5809(90)90011-J , type =

    doi

  46. [54]

    The Review of Economic Studies , volume=

    Basins of attraction, long-run stochastic stability, and the speed of step-by-step evolution , author=. The Review of Economic Studies , volume=. 2000 , publisher=

    2000

  47. [55]

    Algorithmic and Human Collusion , year =

    Werner, Tobias , journal =. Algorithmic and Human Collusion , year =. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3960738 , type =

    doi

  48. [56]

    Dynamic Games with Asymmetric Information: A Framework for Empirical Work , year =

    Fershtman, Chaim and Pakes, Ariel , journal =. Dynamic Games with Asymmetric Information: A Framework for Empirical Work , year =. doi:10.1093/qje/qjs025 , type =

    doi

  49. [57]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06150 , year =

    Xu, Zhang and Zhang, Mingsheng and Zhao, Wei , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06150 , year =

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Journal of Mathematical Economics , volume=

    Escape dynamics and equilibria selection by iterative cycle decomposition , author=. Journal of Mathematical Economics , volume=. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  51. [59]

    Theoretical Economics , volume=

    Dynamics in stochastic evolutionary models , author=. Theoretical Economics , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  52. [60]

    Journal of economic theory , volume=

    The evolution of social and economic networks , author=. Journal of economic theory , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  53. [61]

    Journal of Economic Theory , volume=

    Constrained interactions and social coordination , author=. Journal of Economic Theory , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  54. [62]

    1984 , publisher=

    Random Perturbations of Dynamical Systems , author=. 1984 , publisher=

    1984

  55. [63]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01147 , year=

    On mechanism underlying algorithmic collusion , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01147 , year=

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Marketing Science , volume=

    Competitive imperfect price discrimination and market power , author=. Marketing Science , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  57. [65]

    Journal of mathematical Economics , volume=

    Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies , author=. Journal of mathematical Economics , volume=. 1974 , publisher=

    1974

  58. [66]

    Journal of Economic Theory , volume=

    On redundant types and Bayesian formulation of incomplete information , author=. Journal of Economic Theory , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  59. [67]

    The RAND Journal of Economics , pages=

    Multimarket contact and collusive behavior , author=. The RAND Journal of Economics , pages=. 1990 , publisher=

    1990

  60. [68]

    Journal of International economics , volume=

    Repeated games and the ‘reciprocal dumping’model of trade , author=. Journal of International economics , volume=. 1986 , publisher=

    1986

  61. [69]

    International Economic Review , volume=

    Credible collusion in spatially separated markets , author=. International Economic Review , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  62. [70]

    International Journal of Industrial Organization , volume=

    Collusion at the extensive margin , author=. International Journal of Industrial Organization , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  63. [71]

    International Journal of Industrial Organization , volume=

    Multi-market collusion with territorial allocation , author=. International Journal of Industrial Organization , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  64. [72]

    Journal of international economics , volume=

    A ‘reciprocal dumping’model of international trade , author=. Journal of international economics , volume=. 1983 , publisher=

    1983

  65. [73]

    American Economic Review , volume=

    Nonrivalry and the Economics of Data , author=. American Economic Review , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  66. [74]

    2024 , publisher=

    Market power in artificial intelligence , author=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  67. [75]

    Algorithms and Collusion: Competition Policy in the Digital Age , year =

  68. [76]

    2018 , url =

    Personalised Pricing in the Digital Era , institution =. 2018 , url =

    2018

  69. [77]

    NBER Working Paper , number=

    Algorithmic pricing: Implications for consumers, managers, and regulators , author=. NBER Working Paper , number=

  70. [78]

    American Economic Review , volume=

    The limits of price discrimination , author=. American Economic Review , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  71. [79]

    Marketing Science , year=

    Personalization, Consumer Search, and Algorithmic Pricing , author=. Marketing Science , year=

  72. [80]

    American Economic Journal: Microeconomics , volume=

    Competition in pricing algorithms , author=. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  73. [81]

    Self-Play

    Bertrand, Quentin and Duque, Juan Agustin and Calvano, Emilio and Gidel, Gauthier , booktitle=. Self-Play

  74. [82]

    Games and Economic Behavior , year=

    Algorithmic Collusion and a Folk Theorem from Learning with Bounded Rationality , author=. Games and Economic Behavior , year=

  75. [83]

    Economics Letters , volume=

    On algorithmic collusion and reward--punishment schemes , author=. Economics Letters , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  76. [84]

    Business concentration and price policy , pages=

    Conglomerate bigness as a source of power , author=. Business concentration and price policy , pages=. 1955 , publisher=

    1955

  77. [85]

    Trading against Algorithms: Price Dynamics and Risk-sharing in a Market with

    Banerjee, Snehal and Szydlowski, Martin , journal=. Trading against Algorithms: Price Dynamics and Risk-sharing in a Market with

  78. [86]

    Available at SSRN 3960738 , year=

    Algorithmic and human collusion , author=. Available at SSRN 3960738 , year=

  79. [87]

    A folk theorem for one-shot Bertrand games , year =

    Michael R Baye and John Morgan , journal =. A folk theorem for one-shot Bertrand games , year =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00118-4 , keywords =

    doi

  80. [88]

    Correlated equilibria in homogeneous good Bertrand competition , year =

    Ole Jann and Christoph Schottmüller , journal =. Correlated equilibria in homogeneous good Bertrand competition , year =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmateco.2015.01.005 , keywords =

    2015 doi

  81. [89]

    A Note on Market

    Xu, Zhang and Zhang, Mingsheng and Zhao, Wei , journal=. A Note on Market

  82. [90]

    Available at SSRN 4660391 , year=

    Artificial intelligence & data obfuscation: Algorithmic competition in digital ad auctions , author=. Available at SSRN 4660391 , year=

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.