Off-Policy Evaluation and Learning for Matching Markets
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Matching users based on mutual preferences is a fundamental aspect of services driven by reciprocal recommendations, such as job search and dating applications. Although A/B tests remain the gold standard for evaluating new policies in recommender systems for matching markets, it is costly and impractical for frequent policy updates. Off-Policy Evaluation (OPE) thus plays a crucial role by enabling the evaluation of recommendation policies using only offline logged data naturally collected on the platform. However, unlike conventional recommendation settings, the large scale and bidirectional nature of user interactions in matching platforms introduce variance issues and exacerbate reward sparsity, making standard OPE methods unreliable. To address these challenges and facilitate effective offline evaluation, we propose novel OPE estimators, textitDiPS and textitDPR, specifically designed for matching markets. Our methods combine elements of the Direct Method (DM), Inverse Propensity Score (IPS), and Doubly Robust (DR) estimators while incorporating intermediate labels, such as initial engagement signals, to achieve better bias-variance control in matching markets. Theoretically, we derive the bias and variance of the proposed estimators and demonstrate their advantages over conventional methods. Furthermore, we show that these estimators can be seamlessly extended to offline policy learning methods for improving recommendation policies for making more matches. We empirically evaluate our methods through experiments on both synthetic data and A/B testing logs from a real job-matching platform. The empirical results highlight the superiority of our approach over existing methods in off-policy evaluation and learning tasks for a variety of configurations.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jul 2025.
Builds on
25 of 46 references.
References · 25
- 2016Data-Efficient Off-Policy Policy Evaluation for Reinforcement Learningcited by 286
- 2015Doubly Robust Policy Evaluation and Optimizationcited by 158
- 2018More Robust Doubly Robust Off-policy Evaluationcited by 141
- 2018Offline A/B testing for Recommender Systemscited by 96
- 2022A Review of Off-Policy Evaluation in Reinforcement Learningcited by 95
- 2019Doubly robust off-policy evaluation with shrinkagecited by 87
- 2022Off-Policy Evaluation for Large Action Spaces via Embeddingscited by 54
- 2020Adaptive Estimator Selection for Off-Policy Evaluationcited by 38
- 2023Off-Policy Evaluation for Large Action Spaces via Conjunct Effect Modelingcited by 34
- 2021Evaluating the Robustness of Off-Policy Evaluationcited by 32
- 2024Off-Policy Evaluation of Slate Bandit Policies via Optimizing Abstractioncited by 17
- 2023Towards Assessing and Benchmarking Risk-Return Tradeoff of Off-Policy Evaluationcited by 13
13 more
- 2021Optimizing Rankings for Recommendation in Matching Marketscited by 12
- 2022Local Policy Improvement for Recommender Systemscited by 9
- 2024Long-term Off-Policy Evaluation and Learningcited by 9
- 2024Effective Off-Policy Evaluation and Learning in Contextual Combinatorial Banditscited by 8
- 2015Reciprocal Recommendation System for Online Datingcited by 7
- 2014Online Dating Recommendations: Matching Markets and Learning Preferencescited by 6
- 2024Revisiting Reciprocal Recommender Systems: Metrics, Formulation, and Methodcited by 5
- 2022Matching Theory-based Recommender Systems in Online Datingcited by 4
- 2023Reciprocal Sequential Recommendationcited by 3
- 2023Fast and Examination-agnostic Reciprocal Recommendation in Matching Marketscited by 2
- 2023Double Clipping: Less-Biased Variance Reduction in Off-Policy Evaluationcited by 2
- 2020RRCN: A Reinforced Random Convolutional Network based Reciprocal Recommendation Approach for Online Datingcited by 1
- 2024A Best-of-Both Approach to Improve Match Predictions and Reciprocal Recommendations for Job Searchcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.