Abstract

The imperfect decision-making of human buyers participating in retail markets varies from fundamental models that assume rational economic choices: even in markets with identical items human buyers are not rational, i.e., buyers do not always choose the cheapest option. Recent developments in artificial intelligence and e-commerce enable market participation by software agents that are (almost) perfectly rational due to their computational capacity. However, the increasing degree of buyers’ rationality might have unfavorable effects on retail markets with regards to the competition between sellers and the resulting prices. In this paper, we study the effects of varying degrees of buyers’ rationality on the competition and the prices buyers face in retail markets with identical items. We use the multinomial logit function to model different degrees of buyers’ rationality. We further model the competition between sellers using k-level reasoning: each seller computes the price to offer (best response strategy) with regards to its belief for the competition. First, we derive an analytical best response strategy (price) of a seller given the competing prices and the degree of buyers’ rationality, and show that there exists an optimal degree of buyers’ rationality that minimizes the price. Last, we use evolutionary game theory to show that perfect rationality leads to unstable competition dynamics increasing the overall cost for buyers. In contrast, bounded rationality leads to smoother dynamics and lower cost for buyers. Our insights raise the need to revisit design objectives for software agents in retail markets in light of their wider systematic impact.

Highlights

  • Classical game theoretical models that study strategic interactions between selfinterested decision-makers assume the presence of intelligent and rational agents (Nisan et al 2007; Nash 1950; Sutton and Barto 1998)

  • – We extend the standard assumption of k-level reasoning towards a more realistic belief model for the competition, and we observe that perfect rationality contributes to monopolistic behavior of higher-level reasoning sellers and unstable competition dynamics

  • – In contrast to perfect rationality, we show that bounded rationality leads to smoother competition dynamics and higher benefits for buyers

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Classical game theoretical models that study strategic interactions between selfinterested decision-makers (agents) assume the presence of intelligent and rational agents (Nisan et al 2007; Nash 1950; Sutton and Barto 1998). The application of these models in specific domains mitigates the rationality assumption since agents do not usually have perfect knowledge of the environment (Russell and Thaler 1985). Bounded rationality is a fundamental model that studies the imperfect decision-making of otherwise rational agents due to, e.g., imperfect information, limited computational resources or decision time (Simon 1982). A bounded rational decision-maker may act rationally over a limited set of choices. For the remainder of this paper, we describe rational agents as perfectly rational, while bounded rational agents are agents of lower (unspecified) degree of rationality

Objectives
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call