arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2011.10690

Adaptive Risk Mitigation in Demand Learning

Abstract

We study dynamic pricing of a product with an unknown demand distribution over a finite horizon. Departing from the standard no-regret learning environment in which prices can be adjusted at any time, we restrict price changes to predetermined points in time to reflect common retail practice. This constraint, coupled with demand model ambiguity and an unknown customer arrival pattern, imposes a high risk of revenue loss, as a price based on a misestimated demand model may be applied to many customers before it can be revised. We develop an adaptive risk learning (ARL) framework that embeds a data-driven ambiguity set (DAS) to quantify demand model ambiguity by adapting to the unknown arrival pattern. Initially, when arrivals are few, the DAS includes a broad set of plausible demand models, reflecting high ambiguity and revenue risk. As new data is collected through pricing, the DAS progressively shrinks, capturing the reduction in model ambiguity and associated risk. We establish the probabilistic convergence of the DAS to the true demand model and derive a regret bound for the ARL policy that explicitly links revenue loss to the data required for the DAS to identify the true model with high probability. The dependence of our regret bound on the arrival pattern is unique to our constrained dynamic pricing problem and contrasts with no-regret learning environments, where regret is constant and arrival-pattern independent. Relaxing the constraint on infrequent price changes, we show that ARL attains the known constant regret bound. Numerical experiments further demonstrate that ARL outperforms benchmarks that prioritize either regret or risk alone by adaptively balancing both without knowledge of the arrival pattern. This adaptive risk adjustment is crucial for achieving high revenues and low downside risk when prices are sticky and both demand and arrival patterns are unknown.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Parshan Pakiman, Boxiao Chen, Selvaprabu Nadarajah, Stefanus Jasin. 2020-11-21. Adaptive Risk Mitigation in Demand Learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.10690

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG