Learning in Multi-Stage Decentralized Matching Markets
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Matching markets are often organized in a multi-stage and decentralized manner. Moreover, participants in real-world matching markets often have uncertain preferences. This article develops a framework for learning optimal strategies in such settings, based on a nonparametric statistical approach and variational analysis. We propose an efficient algorithm, built upon concepts of "lower uncertainty bound" and "calibrated decentralized matching," for maximizing the participants' expected payoff. We show that there exists a welfare-versus-fairness trade-off that is characterized by the uncertainty level of acceptance. Participants will strategically act in favor of a low uncertainty level to reduce competition and increase expected payoff. We prove that participants can be better off with multi-stage matching compared to single-stage matching. We demonstrate aspects of the theoretical predictions through simulations and an experiment using real data from college admissions.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Feb 2021.
Builds on
4 of 40 references.
References · 4
- 2019Competing Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 54
- 2020Bandit Learning in Decentralized Matching Marketscited by 46
- 2020Best of Both Worlds: Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Fairness in Resource Allocationcited by 15
- 2020Learning Strategies in Decentralized Matching Markets under Uncertain Preferencescited by 14
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 1; 2022: 4; 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 2.
12 papers.
- 2023Player-optimal Stable Regret for Bandit Learning in Matching Marketscited by 16
- 2021Deep Learning for Two-Sided Matchingcited by 15
- 2022Thompson Sampling for Bandit Learning in Matching Marketscited by 10
- 2022Incentive-Aware Recommender Systems in Two-Sided Marketscited by 5
- 2023Two-sided Competing Matching Recommendation Markets With Quota and Complementary Preferences Constraintscited by 5
- 2022Competing Bandits in Time Varying Matching Marketscited by 2
- 2024Online Auction Design Using Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification with Applications to E-Commercecited by 1
- 2024Long-Term Fairness in Sequential Multi-Agent Selection with Positive Reinforcementcited by 1
- 2025Learn then Decide: A Learning Approach for Designing Data Marketplacescited by 1
- 2022Double Auctions with Two-sided Bandit Feedbackcited by 0
- 2023An ODE Model for Dynamic Matching in Heterogeneous Networkscited by 0
- 2025Optimal Analysis for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets with Serial Dictatorshipcited by 0
- 2025Optimal Analysis for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets with Serial Dictatorship7 Dec 2025
- 2025Learn then Decide: A Learning Approach for Designing Data Marketplaces13 Mar 2025
- 2024Long-Term Fairness in Sequential Multi-Agent Selection with Positive Reinforcement10 Jul 2024
- 2024Online Auction Design Using Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification with Applications to E-Commerce11 May 2024
- 2023Player-optimal Stable Regret for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets20 Jul 2023
- 2023An ODE Model for Dynamic Matching in Heterogeneous Networks20 Feb 2023
- 2023Two-sided Competing Matching Recommendation Markets With Quota and Complementary Preferences Constraints24 Jan 2023
- 2022Incentive-Aware Recommender Systems in Two-Sided Markets23 Nov 2022
- 2022Competing Bandits in Time Varying Matching Markets21 Oct 2022
- 2022Double Auctions with Two-sided Bandit Feedback13 Aug 2022
- 2022Thompson Sampling for Bandit Learning in Matching Markets26 Apr 2022
- 2021Deep Learning for Two-Sided Matching7 Jul 2021