Algorithmic collusion: A critical review

The prospect of collusive agreements being stabilized via the use of pricing algorithms is widely discussed by antitrust experts and economists. However, the literature is often lacking the perspective of computer scientists, and seems to regularly overestimate the applicability of recent progress i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:arXiv.org 2021-10
1. Verfasser: Dorner, Florian E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title arXiv.org
container_volume
creator Dorner, Florian E
description The prospect of collusive agreements being stabilized via the use of pricing algorithms is widely discussed by antitrust experts and economists. However, the literature is often lacking the perspective of computer scientists, and seems to regularly overestimate the applicability of recent progress in machine learning to the complex coordination problem firms face in forming cartels. Similarly, modelling results supporting the possibility of collusion by learning algorithms often use simple market simulations which allows them to use simple algorithms that do not produce many of the problems machine learning practitioners have to deal with in real-world problems, which could prove to be particularly detrimental to learning collusive agreements. After critically reviewing the literature on algorithmic collusion, and connecting it to results from computer science, we find that while it is likely too early to adapt antitrust law to be able to deal with self-learning algorithms colluding in real markets, other forms of algorithmic collusion, such as hub-and-spoke arrangements facilitated by centralized pricing algorithms might already warrant legislative action.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2581109792</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2581109792</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_25811097923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYuA0MjY21LUwMTLiYOAtLs4yMDAwMjM3MjU15mTQcMxJzy_KLMnIzUxWSM7PySktzszPs1JwVEgGimYmJ-YoFKWWZaaW8zCwpiXmFKfyQmluBmU31xBnD92CovzC0tTikvis_NKiPKBUvJGphaGhgaW5pZExcaoAq7QwKA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2581109792</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Algorithmic collusion: A critical review</title><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>Dorner, Florian E</creator><creatorcontrib>Dorner, Florian E</creatorcontrib><description>The prospect of collusive agreements being stabilized via the use of pricing algorithms is widely discussed by antitrust experts and economists. However, the literature is often lacking the perspective of computer scientists, and seems to regularly overestimate the applicability of recent progress in machine learning to the complex coordination problem firms face in forming cartels. Similarly, modelling results supporting the possibility of collusion by learning algorithms often use simple market simulations which allows them to use simple algorithms that do not produce many of the problems machine learning practitioners have to deal with in real-world problems, which could prove to be particularly detrimental to learning collusive agreements. After critically reviewing the literature on algorithmic collusion, and connecting it to results from computer science, we find that while it is likely too early to adapt antitrust law to be able to deal with self-learning algorithms colluding in real markets, other forms of algorithmic collusion, such as hub-and-spoke arrangements facilitated by centralized pricing algorithms might already warrant legislative action.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Antitrust ; Coordination compounds ; Machine learning ; Pricing ; State court decisions</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2021-10</ispartof><rights>2021. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dorner, Florian E</creatorcontrib><title>Algorithmic collusion: A critical review</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>The prospect of collusive agreements being stabilized via the use of pricing algorithms is widely discussed by antitrust experts and economists. However, the literature is often lacking the perspective of computer scientists, and seems to regularly overestimate the applicability of recent progress in machine learning to the complex coordination problem firms face in forming cartels. Similarly, modelling results supporting the possibility of collusion by learning algorithms often use simple market simulations which allows them to use simple algorithms that do not produce many of the problems machine learning practitioners have to deal with in real-world problems, which could prove to be particularly detrimental to learning collusive agreements. After critically reviewing the literature on algorithmic collusion, and connecting it to results from computer science, we find that while it is likely too early to adapt antitrust law to be able to deal with self-learning algorithms colluding in real markets, other forms of algorithmic collusion, such as hub-and-spoke arrangements facilitated by centralized pricing algorithms might already warrant legislative action.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Antitrust</subject><subject>Coordination compounds</subject><subject>Machine learning</subject><subject>Pricing</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYuA0MjY21LUwMTLiYOAtLs4yMDAwMjM3MjU15mTQcMxJzy_KLMnIzUxWSM7PySktzszPs1JwVEgGimYmJ-YoFKWWZaaW8zCwpiXmFKfyQmluBmU31xBnD92CovzC0tTikvis_NKiPKBUvJGphaGhgaW5pZExcaoAq7QwKA</recordid><startdate>20211010</startdate><enddate>20211010</enddate><creator>Dorner, Florian E</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211010</creationdate><title>Algorithmic collusion: A critical review</title><author>Dorner, Florian E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_25811097923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Antitrust</topic><topic>Coordination compounds</topic><topic>Machine learning</topic><topic>Pricing</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dorner, Florian E</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dorner, Florian E</au><format>book</format><genre>document</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>Algorithmic collusion: A critical review</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2021-10-10</date><risdate>2021</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>The prospect of collusive agreements being stabilized via the use of pricing algorithms is widely discussed by antitrust experts and economists. However, the literature is often lacking the perspective of computer scientists, and seems to regularly overestimate the applicability of recent progress in machine learning to the complex coordination problem firms face in forming cartels. Similarly, modelling results supporting the possibility of collusion by learning algorithms often use simple market simulations which allows them to use simple algorithms that do not produce many of the problems machine learning practitioners have to deal with in real-world problems, which could prove to be particularly detrimental to learning collusive agreements. After critically reviewing the literature on algorithmic collusion, and connecting it to results from computer science, we find that while it is likely too early to adapt antitrust law to be able to deal with self-learning algorithms colluding in real markets, other forms of algorithmic collusion, such as hub-and-spoke arrangements facilitated by centralized pricing algorithms might already warrant legislative action.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2331-8422
ispartof arXiv.org, 2021-10
issn 2331-8422
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2581109792
source Free E- Journals
subjects Algorithms
Antitrust
Coordination compounds
Machine learning
Pricing
State court decisions
title Algorithmic collusion: A critical review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T18%3A20%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=document&rft.atitle=Algorithmic%20collusion:%20A%20critical%20review&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Dorner,%20Florian%20E&rft.date=2021-10-10&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2581109792%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2581109792&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true