Pricing AI Model Accuracy

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13375v1
• Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 23:09:04 GMT
• Title: Pricing AI Model Accuracy
• Authors: Nikhil Kumar,
• Abstract summary: We develop a consumer-firm duopoly model to analyze how competition affects firms' incentives to improve model accuracy.<n>We find that in a competitive market, firms that improve overall accuracy do not necessarily improve their profits.
• Score: 0.5559887546392757
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper examines the market for AI models in which firms compete to provide accurate model predictions and consumers exhibit heterogeneous preferences for model accuracy. We develop a consumer-firm duopoly model to analyze how competition affects firms' incentives to improve model accuracy. Each firm aims to minimize its model's error, but this choice can often be suboptimal. Counterintuitively, we find that in a competitive market, firms that improve overall accuracy do not necessarily improve their profits. Rather, each firm's optimal decision is to invest further on the error dimension where it has a competitive advantage. By decomposing model errors into false positive and false negative rates, firms can reduce errors in each dimension through investments. Firms are strictly better off investing on their superior dimension and strictly worse off with investments on their inferior dimension. Profitable investments adversely affect consumers but increase overall welfare.

Related papers

• Your AI, Not Your View: The Bias of LLMs in Investment Analysis [55.328782443604986]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) face frequent knowledge conflicts due to discrepancies between pre-trained parametric knowledge and real-time market data.<n>This paper offers the first quantitative analysis of confirmation bias in LLM-based investment analysis.<n>We observe a consistent preference for large-cap stocks and contrarian strategies across most models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-28T16:09:38Z)
• What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization Perspective [61.38643642719093]
  We prove that regardless of accurate a reward model is, if it induces low reward variance, the RLHF objective suffers from a flat landscape.<n>We additionally show that a reward model that works well for one language model can induce low reward variance, and thus a flat objective landscape, for another.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T17:54:41Z)
• Markets for Models [0.0]
  We study markets in which firms sell models to a consumer to help improve their prediction.<n>We show that market structure can depend on subtle and nonmonotonic ways on the statistical properties of available models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T19:07:02Z)
• Decision-informed Neural Networks with Large Language Model Integration for Portfolio Optimization [29.30269598267018]
  This paper addresses the critical disconnect between prediction and decision quality in portfolio optimization. We exploit the representational power of Large Language Models (LLMs) for investment decisions. Experiments on S&P100 and DOW30 datasets show that our model consistently outperforms state-of-the-art deep learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-02T15:45:21Z)
• Comparative Analysis of LSTM, GRU, and Transformer Models for Stock Price Prediction [0.9217021281095907]
  This paper takes AI driven stock price trend prediction as the core research. It makes a model training data set of famous Tesla cars from 2015 to 2024, and compares LSTM, GRU, and Transformer Models. The experimental results show that the accuracy of the LSTM model is 94%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T14:00:58Z)
• Towards Calibrated Robust Fine-Tuning of Vision-Language Models [97.19901765814431]
  This work proposes a robust fine-tuning method that improves both OOD accuracy and confidence calibration simultaneously in vision language models. We show that both OOD classification and OOD calibration errors have a shared upper bound consisting of two terms of ID data. Based on this insight, we design a novel framework that conducts fine-tuning with a constrained multimodal contrastive loss enforcing a larger smallest singular value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T05:41:25Z)
• Improved Bayes Risk Can Yield Reduced Social Welfare Under Competition [99.7047087527422]
  In this work, we demonstrate that competition can fundamentally alter the behavior of machine learning scaling trends. We find many settings where improving data representation quality decreases the overall predictive accuracy across users. At a conceptual level, our work suggests that favorable scaling trends for individual model-providers need not translate to downstream improvements in social welfare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-26T13:06:34Z)
• Finding Regularized Competitive Equilibria of Heterogeneous Agent Macroeconomic Models with Reinforcement Learning [151.03738099494765]
  We study a heterogeneous agent macroeconomic model with an infinite number of households and firms competing in a labor market. We propose a data-driven reinforcement learning framework that finds the regularized competitive equilibrium of the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T17:16:27Z)
• Troubleshooting Blind Image Quality Models in the Wild [99.96661607178677]
  Group maximum differentiation competition (gMAD) has been used to improve blind image quality assessment (BIQA) models. We construct a set of "self-competitors," as random ensembles of pruned versions of the target model to be improved. Diverse failures can then be efficiently identified via self-gMAD competition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-14T10:10:48Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)
• Beating the market with a bad predictive model [0.0]
  We prove that it is generally possible to make systematic profits with a completely inferior price-predicting model. The key idea is to alter the training objective of the predictive models to explicitly decorrelate them from the market.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T16:20:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.