Bandit based centralized matching in two-sided markets for peer to peer lending
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Sequential fundraising in two sided online platforms enable peer to peer lending by sequentially bringing potential contributors, each of whose decisions impact other contributors in the market. However, understanding the dynamics of sequential contributions in online platforms for peer lending has been an open ended research question. The centralized investment mechanism in these platforms makes it difficult to understand the implicit competition that borrowers face from a single lender at any point in time. Matching markets are a model of pairing agents where the preferences of agents from both sides in terms of their preferred pairing for transactions can allow to decentralize the market. We study investment designs in two sided platforms using matching markets when the investors or lenders also face restrictions on the investments based on borrower preferences. This situation creates an implicit competition among the lenders in addition to the existing borrower competition, especially when the lenders are uncertain about their standing in the market and thereby the probability of their investments being accepted or the borrower loan requests for projects reaching the reserve price. We devise a technique based on sequential decision making that allows the lenders to adjust their choices based on the dynamics of uncertainty from competition over time. We simulate two sided market matchings in a sequential decision framework and show the dynamics of the lender regret amassed compared to the optimal borrower-lender matching and find that the lender regret depends on the initial preferences set by the lenders which could affect their learning over decision making steps.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 May 2021.
Builds on
19 of 54 references.
References · 19
- 2018Delayed Impact of Fair Machine Learningcited by 184
- 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 168
- 2013Bandits with Knapsackscited by 164
- 2019Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Long-term User Engagement in Recommender Systemscited by 90
- 2014Bandits with concave rewards and convex knapsackscited by 83
- 2019Managing Popularity Bias in Recommender Systems with Personalized Re-rankingcited by 82
- 2020FairRec: Two-Sided Fairness for Personalized Recommendations in Two-Sided Platformscited by 78
- 2019Competing Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 56
- 2020Optimizing Long-term Social Welfare in Recommender Systems: A Constrained Matching Approachcited by 32
- 2016Matching while Learningcited by 19
- 2020My Fair Bandit: Distributed Learning of Max-Min Fairness with Multi-player Banditscited by 16
- 2017Human Interaction with Recommendation Systemscited by 15
7 more
- 2020Dominate or Delete: Decentralized Competing Bandits in Serial Dictatorshipcited by 7
- 2014Online Dating Recommendations: Matching Markets and Learning Preferencescited by 6
- 2020Mitigating Bias in Online Microfinance Platforms: A Case Study on Kiva.orgcited by 4
- 2020The Complexity of Interactively Learning a Stable Matching by Trial and Errorcited by 3
- 2014Dynamic Matching Market Designcited by 2
- 2016Preference Elicitation in Matching Markets via Interviews: A Study of Offline Benchmarkscited by 2
- 2014Bridging Utility Maximization and Regret Minimizationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.