Reducing Marketplace Interference Bias Via Shadow Prices
Abstract: Marketplace companies rely heavily on experimentation when making changes to the design or operation of their platforms. The workhorse of experimentation is the randomized controlled trial (RCT), or A/B test, in which users are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups. However, marketplace interference causes the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA) to be violated, leading to bias in the standard RCT metric. In this work, we propose techniques for platforms to run standard RCTs and still obtain meaningful estimates despite the presence of marketplace interference. We specifically consider a generalized matching setting, in which the platform explicitly matches supply with demand via a linear programming algorithm. Our first proposal is for the platform to estimate the value of global treatment and global control via optimization. We prove that this approach is unbiased in the fluid limit. Our second proposal is to compare the average shadow price of the treatment and control groups rather than the total value accrued by each group. We prove that this technique corresponds to the correct first-order approximation (in a Taylor series sense) of the value function of interest even in a finite-size system. We then use this result to prove that, under reasonable assumptions, our estimator is less biased than the RCT estimator. At the heart of our result is the idea that it is relatively easy to model interference in matching-driven marketplaces since, in such markets, the platform mediates the spillover.
- Network flows: theory, algorithms, and applications, chapter 9, page 299. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1993.
- Multiple Randomization Designs. Working Paper, Stanford, 2021.
- Introduction to Linear Optimization, volume 6. Athena Scientific Belmont, MA, 1997.
- Why Marketplace Experimentation is Harder Than It Seems: The Role of Test-Control Interference. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 567–582, 2014.
- Design and Analysis of Switchback Experiments. Management Science (forthcoming), 2022.
- Nicholas Chamandy. Experimentation in a Ridesharing Marketplace. Lyft Engineering Blog, https://eng.lyft.com/experimentation-in-a-ridesharing-marketplace-b39db027a66e, 2016.
- Alex Chin. Regression Adjustments for Estimating the Global Treatment Effect in Experiments with Interference. Journal of Causal Inference, 7(2), 2019.
- WG Cochran. Long-Term Agricultural Experiments. Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 6(2):104–148, 1939.
- Andrey Fradkin. A Simulation Approach to Designing Digital Matching Platforms. Working Paper, Boston University, 2019.
- Reducing Interference Bias in Online Marketplace Pricing Experiments. Working Paper, UC Berkeley, 2020.
- Random Graphs, chapter 2, pages 25–51. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2000.
- Experimental Design in Two-Sided Platforms: An Analysis of Bias. Management Science (forthcoming), 2022.
- Interference, bias, and variance in two-sided marketplace experimentation: Guidance for platforms. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pages 182–192, 2022.
- Treatment effects in market equilibrium. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.11647, 2021.
- New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. Trip record data. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/tlc/about/tlc-trip-record-data.page, 2022.
- Experiment Rigor for Switchback Experiment Analysis. Doordash Engineering Blog, https://doordash.engineering/2019/02/20/experiment-rigor-for-switchback-experiment-analysis/, 2019.
- Graph Cluster Randomization: Network Exposure to Multiple Universes. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 329–337, 2013.
- Experimenting in Equilibrium. Management Science, 67(11):6694–6715, 2021.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.