Beyond Match Maximization and Fairness: Retention-Optimized Two-Sided Matching
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
On two-sided matching platforms such as online dating and recruiting, recommendation algorithms often aim to maximize the total number of matches. However, this objective creates an imbalance, where some users receive far too many matches while many others receive very few and eventually abandon the platform. Retaining users is crucial for many platforms, such as those that depend heavily on subscriptions. Some may use fairness objectives to solve the problem of match maximization. However, fairness in itself is not the ultimate objective for many platforms, as users do not suddenly reward the platform simply because exposure is equalized. In practice, where user retention is often the ultimate goal, casually relying on fairness will leave the optimization of retention up to luck. In this work, instead of maximizing matches or axiomatically defining fairness, we formally define the new problem setting of maximizing user retention in two-sided matching platforms. To this end, we introduce a dynamic learning-to-rank (LTR) algorithm called Matching for Retention (MRet). Unlike conventional algorithms for two-sided matching, our approach models user retention by learning personalized retention curves from each user's profile and interaction history. Based on these curves, MRet dynamically adapts recommendations by jointly considering the retention gains of both the user receiving recommendations and those who are being recommended, so that limited matching opportunities can be allocated where they most improve overall retention. Naturally but importantly, empirical evaluations on synthetic and real-world datasets from a major online dating platform show that MRet achieves higher user retention, since conventional methods optimize matches or fairness rather than retention.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2026.
Builds on
20 of 39 references.
References · 20
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
- 2018Fairness of Exposure in Rankingscited by 189
- 2019Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Long-term User Engagement in Recommender Systemscited by 90
- 2020Controlling Fairness and Bias in Dynamic Learning-to-Rankcited by 67
- 2021Two-sided fairness in rankings via Lorenz dominancecited by 28
- 2022Modeling Two-Way Selection Preference for Person-Job Fitcited by 18
- 2023Impatient Bandits: Optimizing Recommendations for the Long-Term Without Delaycited by 17
- 2020Learning Effective Representations for Person-Job Fit by Feature Fusioncited by 16
- 2022Fair Ranking as Fair Division: Impact-Based Individual Fairness in Rankingcited by 13
- 2021Optimizing Rankings for Recommendation in Matching Marketscited by 12
- 2021Maximizing Marginal Fairness for Dynamic Learning to Rankcited by 10
- 2021Towards Fair Recommendation in Two-Sided Platformscited by 8
8 more
- 2024Intersectional Two-sided Fairness in Recommendationcited by 8
- 2015Reciprocal Recommendation System for Online Datingcited by 7
- 2023Fairness in Matching under Uncertaintycited by 5
- 2024Fair Reciprocal Recommendation in Matching Marketscited by 4
- 2016A First Look at User Activity on Tindercited by 2
- 2023Fast and Examination-agnostic Reciprocal Recommendation in Matching Marketscited by 2
- 2025Off-Policy Evaluation and Learning for Matching Marketscited by 2
- 2025A General Framework for Off-Policy Learning with Partially-Observed Rewardcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.