arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2103.05199

Dynamic Pricing and Learning under the Bass Model

Shipra Agrawal·Steven Yin·Assaf Zeevi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider a novel formulation of the dynamic pricing and demand learning problem, where the evolution of demand in response to posted prices is governed by a stochastic variant of the popular Bass model with parameters $\alpha, \beta$ that are linked to the so-called "innovation" and "imitation" effects. Unlike the more commonly used i.i.d. and contextual demand models, in this model the posted price not only affects the demand and the revenue in the current round but also the future evolution of demand, and hence the fraction of potential market size $m$ that can be ultimately captured. In this paper, we consider the more challenging incomplete information problem where dynamic pricing is applied in conjunction with learning the unknown parameters, with the objective of optimizing the cumulative revenues over a given selling horizon of length $T$. Equivalently, the goal is to minimize the regret which measures the revenue loss of the algorithm relative to the optimal expected revenue achievable under the stochastic Bass model with market size $m$ and time horizon $T$. Our main contribution is the development of an algorithm that satisfies a high probability regret guarantee of order $\tilde O(m^{2/3})$; where the market size $m$ is known a priori. Moreover, we show that no algorithm can incur smaller order of loss by deriving a matching lower bound. Unlike most regret analysis results, in the present problem the market size $m$ is the fundamental driver of the complexity; our lower bound in fact, indicates that for any fixed $\alpha, \beta$, most non-trivial instances of the problem have constant $T$ and large $m$. We believe that this insight sets the problem of dynamic pricing under the Bass model apart from the typical i.i.d. setting and multi-armed bandit based models for dynamic pricing, which typically focus only on the asymptotics with respect to time horizon $T$.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Shipra Agrawal, Steven Yin, Assaf Zeevi. 2021-03-09. Dynamic Pricing and Learning under the Bass Model. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.05199

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗
arXiv2026

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↗