Putting Gale & Shapley to Work: Guaranteeing Stability Through Learning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Two-sided matching markets describe a large class of problems wherein participants from one side of the market must be matched to those from the other side according to their preferences. In many real-world applications (e.g. content matching or online labor markets), the knowledge about preferences may not be readily available and must be learned, i.e., one side of the market (aka agents) may not know their preferences over the other side (aka arms). Recent research on online settings has focused primarily on welfare optimization aspects (i.e. minimizing the overall regret) while paying little attention to the game-theoretic properties such as the stability of the final matching. In this paper, we exploit the structure of stable solutions to devise algorithms that improve the likelihood of finding stable solutions. We initiate the study of the sample complexity of finding a stable matching, and provide theoretical bounds on the number of samples needed to reach a stable matching with high probability. Finally, our empirical results demonstrate intriguing tradeoffs between stability and optimality of the proposed algorithms, further complementing our theoretical findings.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2024.
Builds on
14 of 49 references.
References · 14
- 2019Competing Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 56
- 2016On Explore-Then-Commit Strategiescited by 47
- 2020Bandit Learning in Decentralized Matching Marketscited by 46
- 2021Learning Equilibria in Matching Markets from Bandit Feedbackcited by 34
- 2021Beyond log2(T) Regret for Decentralized Bandits in Matching Marketscited by 30
- 2023Player-optimal Stable Regret for Bandit Learning in Matching Marketscited by 17
- 2022Learn to Match with No Regret: Reinforcement Learning in Markov Matching Marketscited by 16
- 2022Decentralized, Communication- and Coordination-free Learning in Structured Matching Marketscited by 11
- 2022Thompson Sampling for Bandit Learning in Matching Marketscited by 10
- 2024Improved Bandits in Many-to-one Matching Markets with Incentive Compatibilitycited by 7
- 2016Stable Matching with Uncertain Linear Preferencescited by 6
- 2023Two-sided Competing Matching Recommendation Markets With Quota and Complementary Preferences Constraintscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 4.
7 papers.
- 2025Competing Bandits in Matching Markets via Super Stabilitycited by 4
- 2024Bandit Learning in Matching Markets: Utilitarian and Rawlsian Perspectivescited by 2
- 2026Probably Correct Optimal Stable Matching under Two-Sided Uncertaintycited by 2
- 2025Learning Bilateral Team Formation in Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learningcited by 0
- 2026From Recency Bias to Stable Convergence Block Kaczmarz Methods for Online Preference Learning in Matchmaking Applicationscited by 0
- 2026Learn to Match: Two-Sided Matching with Temporally Extended Feedbackcited by 0
- 2026Exact Regret Frontiers and Externality Scheduling in Centralized Serial-Dictatorship Banditscited by 0
- 2026Exact Regret Frontiers and Externality Scheduling in Centralized Serial-Dictatorship Bandits17 Sep 2026
- 2026Probably Correct Optimal Stable Matching under Two-Sided Uncertainty6 Jul 2026
- 2026Learn to Match: Two-Sided Matching with Temporally Extended Feedback4 Jun 2026
- 2026From Recency Bias to Stable Convergence Block Kaczmarz Methods for Online Preference Learning in Matchmaking Applications11 Apr 2026
- 2025Learning Bilateral Team Formation in Cooperative Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning24 Jun 2025
- 2025Competing Bandits in Matching Markets via Super Stability19 Jun 2025
- 2024Bandit Learning in Matching Markets: Utilitarian and Rawlsian Perspectives30 Nov 2024