Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3614407.3643706acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescslawConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Regulation of Algorithmic Collusion

Published: 12 March 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Consider sellers in a competitive market that use algorithms to adapt their prices from data that they collect. In such a context it is plausible that algorithms could arrive at prices that are higher than the competitive prices and this may benefit sellers at the expense of consumers (i.e., the buyers in the market). This paper gives a definition of plausible algorithmic non-collusion for pricing algorithms. The definition allows a regulator to empirically audit algorithms by applying a statistical test to the data that they collect. Algorithms that are good, i.e., approximately optimize prices to market conditions, can be augmented to collect the data sufficient to pass the audit. Algorithms that have colluded on, e.g., supra-competitive prices cannot pass the audit. The definition allows sellers to possess useful side information that may be correlated with supply and demand and could affect the prices used by good algorithms. The paper provides an analysis of the statistical complexity of such an audit, i.e., how much data is sufficient for the test of non-collusion to be accurate.

References

[1]
Ibrahim Abada and Xavier Lambin. 2023. Artificial intelligence: Can seemingly collusive outcomes be avoided? Management Science (2023).
[2]
Raman Arora, Michael Dinitz, Teodor Vanislavov Marinov, and Mehryar Mohri. 2018. Policy regret in repeated games. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (2018).
[3]
John Asker, Chaim Fershtman, and Ariel Pakes. 2023. The impact of artificial intelligence design on pricing. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy (2023).
[4]
Stephanie Assad, Robert Clark, Daniel Ershov, and Lei Xu. 2020. Algorithmic pricing and competition: Empirical evidence from the German retail gasoline market. (2020).
[5]
Peter Auer, Nicolo Cesa-Bianchi, Yoav Freund, and Robert E Schapire. 2002. The nonstochastic multiarmed bandit problem. SIAM journal on computing 32, 1 (2002), 48--77.
[6]
Robert J Aumann. 1974. Subjectivity and correlation in randomized strategies. Journal of mathematical Economics 1, 1 (1974), 67--96.
[7]
Martino Banchio and Giacomo Mantegazza. 2023. Adaptive Algorithms and Collusion via Coupling. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (London, United Kingdom) (EC '23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 208. https://doi.org/10.1145/3580507.3597726
[8]
Martino Banchio and Andrzej Skrzypacz. 2022. Artificial intelligence and auction design. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 30--31.
[9]
Ziv Bar-Yossef, Kirsten Hildrum, and Felix Wu. 2002. Incentive-compatible online auctions for digital goods. In Proc. 13th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, Vol. 2. 964--970.
[10]
Francisco Beneke and Mark-Oliver Mackenrodt. 2019. Artificial intelligence and collusion. IIC-international review of intellectual property and competition law 50 (2019), 109--134.
[11]
Jean-Pierre Benoit and Vijay Krishna. 1985. Finitely Repeated Games. Econometrica 53, 4 (1985), 905--922.
[12]
Battista Biggio, Igino Corona, Davide Maiorca, Blaine Nelson, Nedim Šrndić, Pavel Laskov, Giorgio Giacinto, and Fabio Roli. 2013. Evasion attacks against machine learning at test time. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2013, Prague, Czech Republic, September 23-27, 2013, Proceedings, Part III 13. Springer, 387--402.
[13]
Avrim Blum and Jason D. Hartline. 2005. Near-Optimal Online Auctions. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (Vancouver, British Columbia) (SODA '05). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, USA, 1156--1163.
[14]
Avrim Blum, Vijay Kumar, Atri Rudra, and Felix Wu. 2003. Online learning in online auctions. In Proceedings of the fourteenth annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete algorithms. 202--204.
[15]
Avrim Blum and Yishay Mansour. 2007. From external to internal regret. Journal of Machine Learning Research 8, 6 (2007).
[16]
Emilio Calvano, Giacomo Calzolari, Vincenzo Denicolo, and Sergio Pastorello. 2020. Artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing, and collusion. American Economic Review 110, 10 (2020), 3267--97.
[17]
Nicholas Carlini and David Wagner. 2017. Adversarial examples are not easily detected: Bypassing ten detection methods. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security. 3--14.
[18]
Sylvain Chassang, Kei Kawai, Jun Nakabayashi, and Juan Ortner. 2022. Robust screens for noncompetitive bidding in procurement auctions. Econometrica 90, 1 (2022), 315--346.
[19]
Sylvain Chassang and Juan Ortner. 2023. Regulating Collusion. 15, 1 (2023), 177--204. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-051520-021936
[20]
Arnoud V den Boer, Janusz M Meylahn, and Maarten Pieter Schinkel. 2022. Artificial collusion: Examining supracompetitive pricing by Q-learning algorithms. Amsterdam Law School Research Paper 2022-25 (2022).
[21]
Deven R Desai and Joshua A Kroll. 2017. Trust but verify: A guide to algorithms and the law. Harv. JL & Tech. 31 (2017), 1.
[22]
Edsger W Dijkstra. 1970. On the reliability of programs. In Edsger Wybe Dijkstra: His Life, Work, and Legacy. 359--370.
[23]
Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 1993. 209 pages.
[24]
Clamp-All Corp. v. Cast Iron Soil Pipe Institute. 1988. 478 pages.
[25]
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. 1984. US 467 (1984), 986.
[26]
Dean P Foster and Rakesh V Vohra. 1997. Calibrated learning and correlated equilibrium. Games and Economic Behavior 21, 1-2 (1997), 40.
[27]
James W Friedman. 1971. A non-cooperative equilibrium for supergames. The Review of Economic Studies 38, 1 (1971), 1--12.
[28]
Michal S Gal. 2023. Limiting Algorithmic Coordination. Berkeley Tech. LJ 38 (2023), 173.
[29]
Axel Gautier, Ashwin Ittoo, and Pieter Van Cleynenbreugel. 2020. AI algorithms, price discrimination and collusion: a technological, economic and legal perspective. European Journal of Law and Economics 50, 3 (2020), 405--435.
[30]
Oded Goldreich. 2010. Property testing. Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci 6390 (2010).
[31]
Joseph E Harrington. 2018. Developing competition law for collusion by autonomous artificial agents. Journal of Competition Law & Economics 14, 3 (2018), 331--363.
[32]
Joseph E Harrington. 2022. The effect of outsourcing pricing algorithms on market competition. Management Science 68, 9 (2022), 6889--6906.
[33]
In re Text Messaging Antitrust Litigation. 2015. F. 3d 782, No. 14-2301 (2015), 867.
[34]
Timo Klein. 2021. Autonomous algorithmic collusion: Q-learning under sequential pricing. The RAND Journal of Economics 52, 3 (2021), 538--558.
[35]
Robert Kleinberg and Tom Leighton. 2003. The value of knowing a demand curve: Bounds on regret for online posted-price auctions. In 44th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 2003. Proceedings. IEEE, 594--605.
[36]
William E Kovacic, Robert C Marshall, Leslie M Marx, and Halbert L White. 2011. Plus factors and agreement in antitrust law. Michigan Law Review (2011), 393--436.
[37]
William E Kovacic and Carl Shapiro. 2000. Antitrust policy: A century of economic and legal thinking. Journal of Economic perspectives 14, 1 (2000), 43--60.
[38]
Joshua Kroll, Joanna Huey, Solon Barocas, Edward Felten, Joel Reidenberg, David Robinson, and Harlan Yu. 2017. Accountable Algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 165, 3 (2017), 633. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol165/iss3/3
[39]
Denis Nekipelov, Vasilis Syrgkanis, and Eva Tardos. 2015. Econometrics for Learning Agents. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (Portland, Oregon, USA) (EC '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--18. https://doi.org/10.1145/2764468.2764522
[40]
George J Stigler. 1964. A theory of oligopoly. Journal of political Economy 72, 1 (1964), 44--61.
[41]
Gilles Stoltz. 2005. Incomplete information and internal regret in prediction of individual sequences. Ph.D. Dissertation. Université Paris Sud-Paris XI.
[42]
American Tobacco Co. v. United States. 1946. US 1946 (1946), 781.
[43]
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States. 1939. US 306 (1939), 208.
[44]
Gregory J Werden. 2004. Economic Evidence on the Existence of Collusion: Reconciling Antitrust Law with Oligopoly Theory. Antitrust Law Journal 71, 3 (2004), 719--800.
[45]
Dennis A Yao and Susan S DeSanti. 1993. Game theory and the legal analysis of tacit collusion. The Antitrust Bulletin 38, 1 (1993), 113--141.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
CSLAW '24: Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer Science and Law
March 2024
161 pages
ISBN:9798400703331
DOI:10.1145/3614407
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 12 March 2024

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Algorithmic collusion
  2. Algorithmic pricing
  3. Antitrust
  4. Regulation of algorithms

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Conference

CSLAW '24
Sponsor:
CSLAW '24: Symposium on Computer Science and Law
March 12 - 13, 2024
MA, Boston, USA

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 218
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)218
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)73
Reflects downloads up to 18 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Get Access

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media