2018
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3251015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dynamic Pricing under a Static Calendar

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The seminal work of Gallego and Van Ryzin (1994) shows that if the revenue function is concave, a static pricing policy loses at most 1/(2 min{C, λ * t}), where C is the number of units and λ * t represents the expected number of sales under the myopic price. The authors also show a universal guarantee of 1 − 1/e for any parameter regime, with both results relying on a concavity assumption on the revenue rate (see also Ma et al (2018)). Ma et al (2018) recently generalize these results for the same model without the concavity assumption, and also provide non-adaptive pricing policies for assortment optimization and non-stationary demand settings with constant factor performance guarantees.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The seminal work of Gallego and Van Ryzin (1994) shows that if the revenue function is concave, a static pricing policy loses at most 1/(2 min{C, λ * t}), where C is the number of units and λ * t represents the expected number of sales under the myopic price. The authors also show a universal guarantee of 1 − 1/e for any parameter regime, with both results relying on a concavity assumption on the revenue rate (see also Ma et al (2018)). Ma et al (2018) recently generalize these results for the same model without the concavity assumption, and also provide non-adaptive pricing policies for assortment optimization and non-stationary demand settings with constant factor performance guarantees.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The authors also show a universal guarantee of 1 − 1/e for any parameter regime, with both results relying on a concavity assumption on the revenue rate (see also Ma et al (2018)). Ma et al (2018) recently generalize these results for the same model without the concavity assumption, and also provide non-adaptive pricing policies for assortment optimization and non-stationary demand settings with constant factor performance guarantees. showed that the 1 − 1/e guarantee and asymptotic optimality for static pricing also holds in the presence of strategic customers.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…In the special case where all of the patience levels equal 1, our problems reduce to the classical online stochastic matching/assortment problems where the firm only gets one chance to make an offering to each customer. Under stationary arrivals, the tight approximation ratio relative to the LP is 1 − 1/e in both of these cases (see Brubach et al (2017) and Ma et al (2018), respectively). Our work, and specifically our impossibility result, shows that both of these problems are substantially more challenging when there are multiple chances to interact with each customer.…”
Section: Contributionsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Other models. Some other problems that are indirectly related to us are (i) online bipartite stochastic matching [e.g., 17,4,39,42,33], (ii) online bipartite matching with stochastic rewards [e.g., 40,28,31] and (iii) online prophet inequality matching, with or without reusable resources [e.g., 3,19,11,20,38]. Finally, marginally related to us in terms of modeling is also the rich literature on stochastic i.i.d.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%