Algorithmic collusion in a two-sided market: A rideshare example (2405.02835v2)
Abstract: With dynamic pricing on the rise, firms are using sophisticated algorithms for price determination. These algorithms are often non-interpretable and there has been a recent interest in their seemingly emergent ability to tacitly collude with each other without any prior communication whatsoever. Most of the previous works investigate algorithmic collusion on simple reinforcement learning (RL) based algorithms operating on a basic market model. Instead, we explore the collusive tendencies of Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), a state-of-the-art continuous state/action space RL algorithm, on a complex double-sided hierarchical market model of rideshare. For this purpose, we extend a mathematical program network (MPN) based rideshare model to a temporal multi origin-destination setting and use PPO to solve for a repeated duopoly game. Our results indicate that PPO can either converge to a competitive or a collusive equilibrium depending upon the underlying market characteristics, even when the hyper-parameters are held constant.
- E. Garbarino and O. F. Lee, “Dynamic pricing in internet retail: effects on consumer trust,” Psychology & Marketing, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 495–513, 2003.
- M. K. Chen and M. Sheldon, “Dynamic pricing in a labor market: Surge pricing and flexible work on the uber platform.” Ec, vol. 16, p. 455, 2016.
- B. News, “Wendy’s denies plans for surge pricing after backlash,” https://www.bbc.com/news/business-68427039, 2024, accessed: 2024-04-29.
- C. Rudin, “Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,” Nature machine intelligence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206–215, 2019.
- L. Waltman and U. Kaymak, “Q-learning agents in a cournot oligopoly model,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, vol. 32, no. 10, pp. 3275–3293, 2008.
- Z. Y. Brown and A. MacKay, “Competition in pricing algorithms,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 109–156, 2023.
- S. Assad, R. Clark, D. Ershov, and L. Xu, “Algorithmic pricing and competition: Empirical evidence from the german retail gasoline market,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 132, no. 3, pp. 000–000, 2024.
- F. Laine, “Mathematical program networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.03767, 2024.
- P. Koirala and F. Laine, “Decreasing wages in gig economy: A game theoretic explanation using mathematical program networks,” 2024.
- J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal policy optimization algorithms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017.
- S. Huck, H.-T. Normann, and J. Oechssler, “Through trial and error to collusion,” International Economic Review, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 205–224, 2004.
- B. Salcedo, “Pricing algorithms and tacit collusion,” Manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, 2015.
- E. Calvano, G. Calzolari, V. Denicolo, and S. Pastorello, “Artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing, and collusion,” American Economic Review, vol. 110, no. 10, pp. 3267–3297, 2020.
- J. Miklós-Thal and C. Tucker, “Collusion by algorithm: Does better demand prediction facilitate coordination between sellers?” Management Science, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1552–1561, 2019.
- T. Klein, “Autonomous algorithmic collusion: Q-learning under sequential pricing,” The RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 538–558, 2021.
- I. Abada and X. Lambin, “Artificial intelligence: Can seemingly collusive outcomes be avoided?” Management Science, vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 5042–5065, 2023.
- A. V. den Boer, J. M. Meylahn, and M. P. Schinkel, “Artificial collusion: Examining supracompetitive pricing by q-learning algorithms,” Amsterdam Law School Research Paper, no. 2022-25, 2022.
- J. M. Sanchez-Cartas and E. Katsamakas, “Artificial intelligence, algorithmic competition and market structures,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 10 575–10 584, 2022.
- M. Hettich, “Algorithmic collusion: Insights from deep learning,” Available at SSRN 3785966, 2021.
- Y. Wang, “Will algorithms learn to collude?” 2022.
- A. Nikzad, “Thickness and competition in ride-sharing markets.” [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3065672
- F. Bernstein, G. A. DeCroix, and N. B. Keskin, “Competition between two-sided platforms under demand and supply congestion effects,” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1043–1061, 2021.
- K. A. Bryan and J. S. Gans, “A theory of multihoming in rideshare competition,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 89–96, 2019.
- J. Bai and C. S. Tang, “Can two competing on-demand service platforms be profitable?” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 250, p. 108672, 2022.
- P. Koirala and F. Laine, “Monte carlo optimization for solving multilevel stackelberg games,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03282, 2023.
- G. C. Lopes, M. Ferreira, A. da Silva Simões, and E. L. Colombini, “Intelligent control of a quadrotor with proximal policy optimization reinforcement learning,” in 2018 Latin American Robotic Symposium, 2018 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2018 Workshop on Robotics in Education (WRE). IEEE, 2018, pp. 503–508.
- W. Funika, P. Koperek, and J. Kitowski, “Automatic management of cloud applications with use of proximal policy optimization,” in International Conference on Computational Science. Springer, 2020, pp. 73–87.
- E. Bøhn, E. M. Coates, S. Moe, and T. A. Johansen, “Deep reinforcement learning attitude control of fixed-wing uavs using proximal policy optimization,” in 2019 international conference on unmanned aircraft systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 523–533.
- F. Ye, X. Cheng, P. Wang, C.-Y. Chan, and J. Zhang, “Automated lane change strategy using proximal policy optimization-based deep reinforcement learning,” in 2020 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2020, pp. 1746–1752.
- S. Lin and P. A. Beling, “An end-to-end optimal trade execution framework based on proximal policy optimization,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2021, pp. 4548–4554.
- J. Terry, B. Black, N. Grammel, M. Jayakumar, A. Hari, R. Sullivan, L. S. Santos, C. Dieffendahl, C. Horsch, R. Perez-Vicente, et al., “Pettingzoo: Gym for multi-agent reinforcement learning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 34, pp. 15 032–15 043, 2021.