Xin Chen
ABSTRACT
In the big data era, personalized pricing has become a popular strategy that sets different prices for the same product according to individual customers’ features. Despite its popularity among companies, this practice is controversial due to the concerns over fairness that can be potentially caused by price discrimination. In this paper, we consider the problem of single-product personalized pricing for different groups under fairness constraints. Specifically, we define group fairness constraints under different distance metrics in the personalized pricing context. We then establish a stochastic formulation that maximizes the revenue. Under the discrete price setting, we reformulate this problem as a linear program and obtain the optimal pricing policy efficiently. To bridge the gap between the discrete and continuous price setting, theoretically, we prove a general gap between the optimal revenue with continuous and discrete price set of size l. Under some mild conditions, we improve this bound to . Empirically, we demonstrate the benefits of our approach over several baseline approaches on both synthetic data and real-world data. Our results also provide managerial insights into setting a proper fairness degree as well as an appropriate size of discrete price set.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
- 2008. Linear Programming Algorithms. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71844-4_4Google Scholar
- Massachusetts Post Audit. 1997. Shear discrimination: Bureau finds wide price bias against women at Massachusetts hair salons despite anti-discrimination laws.Google Scholar
- Gah-Yi Ban and N Bora Keskin. 2017. Personalized dynamic pricing with machine learning (may 23, 2017).Google Scholar
- Richard E Barlow, Albert W Marshall, and Frank Proschan. 1963. Properties of probability distributions with monotone hazard rate. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics (1963), 375–389.Google Scholar
- Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Fairness and Machine Learning. fairmlbook.org. http://www.fairmlbook.org.Google Scholar
- William E. Becker. 1999. Carl Shapiro and Hal R. Varian. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 1999. x + 352 pp. The Journal of Economic Education 30, 2 (1999), 189–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220489909595956 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220489909595956Google Scholar
- Max Biggs, Wei Sun, and Markus Ettl. 2021. Model Distillation for Revenue Optimization: Interpretable Personalized Pricing. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 946–956.Google Scholar
- Alexander W Butler, Erik J Mayer, and James P Weston. 2022. Racial Disparities in the Auto Loan Market. The Review of Financial Studies (05 2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhac029 arXiv:https://academic.oup.com/rfs/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/rfs/hhac029/44179813/hhac029.pdfhhac029.Google Scholar
- Xi Chen, Zachary Owen, Clark Pixton, and David Simchi-Levi. 2021. A statistical learning approach to personalization in revenue management. Management Science (2021).Google Scholar
- Silvia Chiappa. 2019. Path-specific counterfactual fairness. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 7801–7808.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephanie Clifford. 2012. Shopper alert: Price may drop for you alone. New York Times 9 (2012).Google Scholar
- Maxime Cohen, Adam Elmachtoub, and Xiao Lei. 2019. Pricing with Fairness. (Sept. 2019). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.345928Google Scholar
- Maxime C. Cohen, Adam N. Elmachtoub, and Xiao Lei. 2022. Price Discrimination with Fairness Constraints. Management Science 0, 0 (March 2022), null. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4317 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4317Google ScholarDigital Library
- Maxime C Cohen, Ilan Lobel, and Renato Paes Leme. 2020. Feature-based dynamic pricing. Management Science 66, 11 (2020), 4921–4943.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pablo de Andrés, Ricardo Gimeno, and Ruth Mateos de Cabo. 2021. The gender gap in bank credit access. Journal of Corporate Finance 71 (2021), 101782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101782Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Rich Zemel. 2011. Fairness Through Awareness. (Nov. 2011).Google Scholar
- Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Richard Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference. 214–226.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anne D’Innocenzio. 2017. Neiman marcus focuses on exclusives, personalized offers; ends merger talks. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2017/06/13/neiman-marcus-focuses-exclusives-personalized-offers/102814962.Google Scholar
- Adam N Elmachtoub, Vishal Gupta, and Michael L Hamilton. 2021. The value of personalized pricing. Management Science (2021).Google Scholar
- Lu Fang and Henry J. Munneke. 2020. Gender Equality in Mortgage Lending. Real Estate Economics 48, 4 (2020), 957–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12198 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1540-6229.12198Google ScholarCross Ref
- Frank A. Farris. 2010. The Gini Index and Measures of Inequality. The American Mathematical Monthly 117, 10 (2010), 851–864. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.4169/000298910x523344Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chris Gee. 2018. Fair pricing in financial services. https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/discussion/dp18-09.pdf.Google Scholar
- Joshua A Gerlick and Stephan M Liozu. 2020. Ethical and legal considerations of artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making in personalized pricing. Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management (2020), 1–14.Google Scholar
- Talia B Gillis. 2020. False dreams of algorithmic fairness: The case of credit pricing. Available at SSRN 3571266 (2020).Google Scholar
- Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016), 3315–3323.Google Scholar
- Hoda Heidari and Andreas Krause. 2018. Preventing Disparate Treatment in Sequential Decision Making. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2248–2254. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2018/311Google ScholarCross Ref
- White House. 2015. Big data and differential pricing. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/docs/Big_Data_Report_Nonembargo_v2.pdf.Google Scholar
- Nathan Kallus and Angela Zhou. 2021. Fairness, Welfare, and Equity in Personalized Pricing. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Virtual Event, Canada) (FAccT ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 296–314. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445895Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathan Kallus and Angela Zhou. 2021. Fairness, Welfare, and Equity in Personalized Pricing. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 296–314.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Kearns, Seth Neel, Aaron Roth, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2018. Preventing fairness gerrymandering: Auditing and learning for subgroup fairness. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2564–2572.Google Scholar
- Niki Kilbertus, Mateo Rojas-Carulla, Giambattista Parascandolo, Moritz Hardt, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2017. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017).Google Scholar
- Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfactual Fairness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017).Google Scholar
- Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 6 (2021), 1–35.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Andres Munoz and Sergei Vassilvitskii. 2017. Revenue Optimization with Approximate Bid Predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (2017), 1858–1866.Google Scholar
- Yves Rychener, Bahar Taskesen, and Daniel Kuhn. 2023. Metrizing Fairness. arxiv:2205.15049 [cs.LG]Google Scholar
- Carl Shapiro, Shapiro Carl, Hal R Varian, 1998. Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
- Max Shen, Christopher S. Tang, Di Wu, Rong Yuan, and Wei Zhou. 2020. JD.com: Transaction-Level Data for the 2020 MSOM Data Driven Research Challenge. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 0, 0 (2020), null. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0900 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2020.0900Google ScholarDigital Library
- Omer Tamuz. 2013. A lower bound on seller revenue in single buyer monopoly auctions. Operations Research Letters 41, 5 (2013), 474–476.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brad Tuttle. 2013. Flight prices to get personal? airfares could vary depending on who is traveling. http://business.time.com/2013/03/05/flight-prices-to-get-personal-airfares-could-vary-depending-on-who-is-traveling.Google Scholar
- Sahil Verma and Julia Rubin. 2018. Fairness Definitions Explained. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness (Gothenburg, Sweden) (FairWare ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194770.3194776Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian Wallheimer. 2018. Are you ready for personalized pricing?https://review.chicagobooth.edu/marketing/2018/article/are-you-ready-personalized-pricing.Google Scholar
- Renzhe Xu, Peng Cui, Kun Kuang, Bo Li, Linjun Zhou, Zheyan Shen, and Wei Cui. 2020. Algorithmic Decision Making with Conditional Fairness. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 2125–2135.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ruofei Zhao Ya’acov Ritov, Yuekai Sun. 2017. On conditional parity as a notion of non-discrimination in machine learning. (June 2017).Google Scholar
- Mikhail Yurochkin and Yuekai Sun. 2020. Sensei: Sensitive set invariance for enforcing individual fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.14168 (2020).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Personalized Pricing with Group Fairness Constraint
Recommendations
Envy-Free Pricing in Large Markets: Approximating Revenue and Welfare
We study the classic setting of envy-free pricing, in which a single seller chooses prices for its many items, with the goal of maximizing revenue once the items are allocated. Despite the large body of work addressing such settings, most versions of ...
Walrasian pricing in multi-unit auctions
AbstractMulti-unit auctions are a paradigmatic model of resource allocation, where a seller brings multiple units of a good to a set of buyers equipped with monetary budgets. It is well known that Walrasian equilibria do not always exist in ...
Highlights- We consider multi-unit auctions with budgets and design a best possible envy-free and prior-free mechanism.
Price Fairness and Strategic Obfuscation
Personalized prices affect fairness concerns, and firms have incentive to invest in technology that obfuscates prices and mitigates consumers’ fairness concerns.
Firms are increasingly using technology to enable targeted, or “personalized,” pricing strategies. In settings where prices are transparent to all consumers, however, there is the potential for interpersonal price differences to be perceived as inherently ...
Comments