Cited by 183Advanced Bandit Algorithms ResearchConsumer Market Behavior and PricingSupply Chain and Inventory Management

Dynamic Online Pricing with Incomplete Information Using Multiarmed Bandit Experiments

Misra, Kanishka, Schwartz, Eric M., Abernethy, Jacob·2019·Marketing Science

Abstract

We propose an alternative dynamic price experimentation policy that extends multiarmed bandit (MAB) algorithms from statistical machine learning to include microeconomic choice theory.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mksc.2018.1129

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Misra, K., Schwartz, E. M., & Abernethy, J.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Misra, Kanishka
Venue
Marketing Science
Published
2019-03
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
226-252
ISSN
  • 0732-2399 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-548X
OpenAlex
W2725896932
Cited by
183
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2
FWCI
11.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Marketing Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Supply Chain and Inventory Management
Keywords
dynamic pricing, online pricing, incomplete information, multi-armed bandits, choice theory, pricing policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review