A practical audit toolkit for algorithmic pricing: by exploiting exploration randomness and using cumulative propensity weights — plus a doubly robust augmentation — regulators and firms can estimate consumer surplus and quantify profit–equity trade-offs without fully specifying demand.

Main Finding

The paper introduces a practical, statistically efficient framework for auditing consumer surplus from observational data generated by randomized/experimenting pricing algorithms. It proposes the cumulative propensity weighting (CPW) estimator — which recovers surplus (area under the demand curve) without explicit demand-function integration — and an augmented CPW (ACPW) estimator that is doubly robust (consistent if either the demand model or the historical pricing distribution is correct). The framework extends to an inequality-aware (equity-sensitive) surplus target, derives efficient influence functions, proves asymptotic normality/efficiency, and demonstrates strong empirical performance including an application to a large U.S. auto-loan dataset that finds personalized pricing lowers aggregate surplus but can reduce disparities across groups.

Key Points

• Problem framed: consumer surplus = E[(V − p)+], with only observed data (covariates X, historic price P, binary purchase Y = 1{V ≥ P}) — valuation V is latent.
• Leverages inherent price randomization from modern algorithmic pricing (exploration) to obtain quasi-experimental variation.
• Cumulative Propensity Weighting (CPW):
  • Each purchased/not-purchased observation at price p is an unbiased estimator of demand at that price.
  • CPW reconstructs the integral of the demand curve by reweighting observations according to cumulative propensities: roughly, weight ∝ (probability target policy sets price ≤ p | X) / (probability historical policy sets price ≤ p | X).
  • When the historical pricing mechanism is known, CPW is model-free.
• Augmented CPW (ACPW):
  • Combines CPW with a demand-model (direct method) to form a doubly robust estimator.
  • Consistent if either the demand estimator or the estimated historical pricing/cumulative-weight model is correct.
  • Uses cross-fitting to allow flexible machine learning nuisance estimators and to avoid Donsker conditions.
  • Shown to be asymptotically equivalent to the efficient influence function (semiparametric efficiency) and asymptotically normal → valid CIs.
• Inequality-aware surplus:
  • Defines a generalized-mean (Bergson/Atkinson-style) surplus that trades off aggregate surplus and equity via a tunable parameter.
  • Derives the efficient influence function and an estimator adapted from CPW/ACPW.
  • Because of nonlinearity, this estimator is singly robust (consistency requires a correct demand model) but still permits ML under stricter rate conditions and has minimum asymptotic variance among regular estimators.
• Theoretical results:
  • Double robustness, asymptotic normality, efficiency, and rate conditions that permit ML estimation of nuisances (with relaxed rates for ACPW in the aggregate-surplus case).
  • Extension to partial identification bounds when overlap is violated (appendix).
• Empirical validation:
  • Simulations confirm robustness and finite-sample behavior: ACPW recovers surplus under misspecification of one nuisance and attains best rates when both are correct.
  • Application to large-scale U.S. auto-loan data: personalized AI pricing decreases aggregate consumer surplus but reduces disparities across credit/political groups (demonstrating a surplus–equity tradeoff).

Data & Methods

• Data structure:
  • Observations (Xi, Pi, Yi) where Xi = consumer features, Pi = price set historically (randomized by an algorithmic policy), Yi = 1{Vi ≥ Pi} purchase indicator. Valuation Vi is unobserved.
  • Optionally: knowledge of historical pricing policy (preferred) or estimation of its conditional distribution from data.
• CPW estimator:
  • Compute cumulative propensity weights C_hist(p | X) = Pr_historical(P ≤ p | X).
  • Specify a target pricing policy π (e.g., an evaluated AI policy) and compute C_target(p | X) = Pr_π(P ≤ p | X).
  • For each observation at price p, weight the purchase indicator by C_target(p | X) / C_hist(p | X) and aggregate across p to reconstruct S(π) = E_X ∫_0^∞ Pr(V ≥ t | X, under π) dt.
  • If C_hist is unknown, estimate it nonparametrically or with ML; CPW is model-free otherwise.
• ACPW (augmented estimator):
  • Augment CPW with a fitted demand model m(p, X) ≈ Pr(Y = 1 | P = p, X).
  • Form an estimator combining weighted observed outcomes and the estimated m to obtain double robustness, using cross-fitting for nuisance estimation to avoid bias from overfitting.
  • Prove that the estimator achieves the efficient influence function and semiparametric efficiency under regularity conditions.
• Inequality-aware surplus:
  • Target: a generalized-mean aggregation of individual conditional surpluses S_i with a parameter α that downweights better-off individuals as α decreases.
  • Derive influence function for this nonlinear functional; construct a plug-in and augmented estimator adapted to the CPW framework.
  • The estimator requires correct demand estimation for consistency (single robustness) and has stricter rate requirements for ML nuisances.
• Practical implementation notes:
  • Cross-fitting and sample-splitting recommended for ML nuisance estimation.
  • Confidence intervals via asymptotic normality and estimated influence-function variance.
  • Requires sufficient overlap: historical policy must have positive probability mass over price regions the target policy evaluates (handled partially via identification bounds when violated).

Implications for AI Economics

• New auditing toolkit: provides regulators and firms a practical method to audit welfare impacts of algorithmic pricing/lending using existing logged interaction data without needing full experimental demand curves.
• Less reliance on parametric demand assumptions: CPW avoids explicit demand-function integration; ACPW lets ML demand models improve efficiency while protecting against misspecification.
• Enables policy comparison and counterfactual evaluation: can compare historical policies to proposed AI policies in terms of aggregate surplus and equity-weighted welfare, with valid confidence intervals.
• Formalizes surplus–equity tradeoffs: the inequality-aware surplus gives a single scalar to quantify distributional impacts of algorithmic policies, facilitating regulatory analysis of discriminatory or disparate impacts.
• Practical prerequisites and caveats:
  • Requires price experimentation/randomization in historical data (common in modern dynamic pricing algorithms); limited or deterministic pricing restricts identification unless additional assumptions are made.
  • Overlap is required (or partial-identification bounds applied) — target policies that concentrate mass where no historical data exist are hard to evaluate.
  • The equity-weight parameter must be chosen ex ante; results depend on this normative choice.
• Broader significance: the methodology bridges off-policy evaluation and welfare economics, making it feasible to assess AI-driven market interventions’ welfare consequences at scale and with modern ML tools while providing rigorous statistical guarantees.