Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper benchmarks Fitted Dynamic Programming (DP) against Reinforcement Learning (RL) for finite-horizon dynamic pricing across environments of increasing complexity, including multi-typology settings with heterogeneous demand and inter-temporal revenue constraints. The authors apply DP in high-dimensional environments, unlike prior work that restricts DP to low-dimensional settings. Results show a trade-off between DP's explicit expectation-based optimization and RL's trajectory-based learning, with analysis of revenue, stability, constraint satisfaction, and computational scaling.
Forget RL vs. DP dogmatism: this study reveals nuanced trade-offs in dynamic pricing, showing where expectation-based optimization beats trajectory-based learning, and vice versa, even in high-dimensional settings.
This paper provides a systematic comparison between Fitted Dynamic Programming (DP), where demand is estimated from data, and Reinforcement Learning (RL) methods in finite-horizon dynamic pricing problems. We analyze their performance across environments of increasing structural complexity, ranging from a single typology benchmark to multi-typology settings with heterogeneous demand and inter-temporal revenue constraints. Unlike simplified comparisons that restrict DP to low-dimensional settings, we apply dynamic programming in richer, multi-dimensional environments with multiple product types and constraints. We evaluate revenue performance, stability, constraint satisfaction behavior, and computational scaling, highlighting the trade-offs between explicit expectation-based optimization and trajectory-based learning.