Experimenting in Equilibrium

References

• Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J (2010) Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 105(490):493–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adlakha S, Johari R, Weintraub GY (2015) Equilibria of dynamic games with many players: Existence, approximation, and market structure. J. Econom. Theory 156:269–316.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aronow PM, Samii C (2017) Estimating average causal effects under general interference, with application to a social network experiment. Ann. Appl. Stat. 11(4):1912–1947.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Luca M (2019) Economists (and economics) in tech companies. J. Econom. Perspect. 33(1):209–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Eckles D, Imbes GW (2018) Exact p-values for network interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 113(521):230–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baird S, Bohren JA, McIntosh C, Özler B (2018) Optimal design of experiments in the presence of interference. Rev. Econom. Statist. 100(5):844–860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Duflo E (2011) Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty (Public Affairs, New York).Google Scholar
• Basse GW, Feller A, Toulis P (2019) Randomization tests of causal effects under interference. Biometrika 106(2):487–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Basse GW, Soufiani HA, Lambert D (2016) Randomization and the pernicious effects of limited budgets on auction experiments. Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 1412–1420.Google Scholar
• Beck A, Teboulle M (2003) Mirror descent and nonlinear projected subgradient methods for convex optimization. Oper. Res. Lett. 31(3):167–175.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Blake T, Coey D (2014) Why marketplace experimentation is harder than it seems: The role of test-control interference. Proc.15th ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (ACM), 567–582.Google Scholar
• Blundell R, Dias MC, Meghir C, Van Reenen J (2004) Evaluating the employment impact of a mandatory job search program. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 2(4):569–606.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bottou L, Peters J, Candela JQ, Charles DX, Chickering M, Portugaly E, Ray D, Simard PY, Snelson E (2013) Counterfactual reasoning and learning systems: The example of computational advertising. J. Machine Learn. Res. 14(1):3207–3260.Google Scholar
• Bramson M, Lu Y, Prabhakar B (2012) Asymptotic independence of queues under randomized load balancing. Queueing Systems 71(3):247–292.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bubeck S, Lee YT, Eldan R (2017) Kernel-based methods for bandit convex optimization. Proc. 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symp. Theory Comput. (ACM), 72–85.Google Scholar
• Bubeck S, Jiang Q, Lee Y-T, Li Y, Sidford A (2019) Complexity of highly parallel non-smooth convex optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 13900–13909.Google Scholar
• Cachon GP, Daniels KM, Lobel R (2017) The role of surge pricing on a service platform with self-scheduling capacity. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 19(3):368–384.Link, Google Scholar
• CAISO (2009) Renewable resources and the California electric power industry: System operations, wholesale markets and grid planning. California ISO Report, https://www.caiso.com/Documents/RenewableResourcesandCaliforniaElectricPowerIndustry-SystemOperations_WholesaleMarketsandGridPlanning.pdf.Google Scholar
• Cesa-Bianchi N, Conconi A, Gentile C (2004) On the generalization ability of on-line learning algorithms. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 50(9):2050–2057.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chetty R (2009) Sufficient statistics for welfare analysis: A bridge between structural and reduced-form methods. Annual Rev. Econom. 1(1):451–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duchi J, Ruan F, Yun C (2018) Minimax bounds on stochastic batched convex optimization. Conference On Learning Theory, 3065–3162.Google Scholar
• Duchi JC, Jordan MI, Wainwright MJ, Wibisono A (2015) Optimal rates for zero-order convex optimization: The power of two function evaluations. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 61(5):2788–2806.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckles D, Karrer B, Ugander J (2017) Design and analysis of experiments in networks: Reducing bias from interference. J. Causal Inference 5(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Esfandiari H, Karbasi A, Mehrabian A, Mirrokni V (2019) Regret bounds for batched bandits. Preprint, submitted October 11, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.04959.Google Scholar
• Feng Z, Podimata C, Syrgkanis V (2018) Learning to bid without knowing your value. Proc. 2018 ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (ACM), 505–522.Google Scholar
• Fisher RA (1935) The Design of Experiments (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh).Google Scholar
• Flaxman AD, Kalai AT, McMahan HB (2005) Online convex optimization in the bandit setting: gradient descent without a gradient. Proc. 16th Annual ACM-SIAM Symp. Discrete Algorithms (Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics), 385–394.Google Scholar
• Gao Z, Han Y, Ren Z, Zhou Z (2019) Batched multi-armed bandits problem. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 501–511.Google Scholar
• Ghadimi S, Lan G (2013) Stochastic first-and zeroth-order methods for nonconvex stochastic programming. SIAM J. Optim. 23(4):2341–2368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goh M (2002) Congestion management and electronic road pricing in Singapore. J. Transport Geography 10(1):29–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Graham C, Méléard S (1994) Chaos hypothesis for a system interacting through shared resources. Probab. Theory Related Fields 100(2):157–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Halfin S, Whitt W (1981) Heavy-traffic limits for queues with many exponential servers. Oper. Res. 29(3):567–588.Link, Google Scholar
• Hall J, Kendrick C, Nosko C (2015) The effects of Uber’s surge pricing: A case study. Report, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Hall JV, Horton JJ, Knoepfle DT (2020) Ride-sharing markets re-equilibrate. Accessed November 11, 2020, https://john-joseph-horton.com/papers/uber_price.pdf.Google Scholar
• Harberger AC (1964) The measurement of waste. Amer. Econom. Rev. 54(3):58–76.Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ (2001) Micro data, heterogeneity, and the evaluation of public policy: Nobel lecture. J. Political Econ. 109(4):673–748.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman JJ, Lochner L, Taber C (1998) General-equilibrium treatment effects: A study of tuition policy. Amer. Econom. Rev. 88(2):381–386.Google Scholar
• Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(5):1644–1655.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hopenhayn HA (1992) Entry, exit, and firm dynamics in long run equilibrium. Econometrica 60(5):1127–1150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hudgens MG, Halloran ME (2008) Toward causal inference with interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 103(482):832–842.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imbens GW (2014) Instrumental variables: An econometrician’s perspective. Statist. Sci. 29(3):323–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imbens GW, Rubin DB (2015) Causal Inference in Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyer K, Johari R, Sundararajan M (2014) Mean field equilibria of dynamic auctions with learning. Management Sci. 60(12):2949–2970.Link, Google Scholar
• Jamieson KG, Nowak R, Recht B (2012) Query complexity of derivative-free optimization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2672–2680.Google Scholar
• Johari R, Kamble V, Kanoria Y (2017) Matching while learning. Proc. 2017 ACM Conf. Econom. Comput. (ACM), 119.Google Scholar
• Jovanovic B, Rosenthal RW (1988) Anonymous sequential games. J. Math. Econom. 17(1):77–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kanoria Y, Nazerzadeh H (2014) Dynamic reserve prices for repeated auctions: Learning from bids. International Conf. Web Internet Econom. (Springer), 232.Google Scholar
• Keskin NB, Zeevi A (2014) Dynamic pricing with an unknown demand model: Asymptotically optimal semi-myopic policies. Oper. Res. 62(5):1142–1167.Link, Google Scholar
• Khetan A, Oh S (2016) Achieving budget-optimality with adaptive schemes in crowdsourcing. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 4844–4852.Google Scholar
• Kleinberg RD (2005) Nearly tight bounds for the continuum-armed bandit problem. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 697–704.Google Scholar
• Kohavi R, Longbotham R, Sommerfield D, Henne RM (2009) Controlled experiments on the web: Survey and practical guide. Data Mining Knowledge Discovery 18(1):140–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Letham B, Karrer B, Ottoni G, Bakshy E (2019) Constrained Bayesian optimization with noisy experiments. Bayesian Anal. 14(2):495–519.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leung MP (2020) Treatment and spillover effects under network interference. Rev. Econom. Stat. 102(2):368–380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manski CF (2013) Identification of treatment response with social interactions. Econom. J. 16(1):S1–S23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Massoulié L, Xu K (2018) On the capacity of information processing systems. Oper. Res. 66(2):568–586.Link, Google Scholar
• Mézard M, Parisi G, Virasoro M (1987) Spin Glass Theory and Beyond: An Introduction to the Replica Method and Its Applications (World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore).Google Scholar
• Nambiar M, Simchi-Levi D, Wang H (2019) Dynamic learning and pricing with model misspecification. Management Sci. 65(11):4980–5000.Link, Google Scholar
• Nesterov Y, Spokoiny V (2017) Random gradient-free minimization of convex functions. Foundations Comput. Math. 17(2):527–566.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ogburn EL, VanderWeele TJ (2017) Vaccines, contagion, and social networks. Ann. Appl. Statist. 11(2):919–948.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ostrovsky M, Schwarz M (2011) Reserve prices in Internet advertising auctions: A field experiment. EC '11: Proc. 12th ACM Conf. Electronic Commerce, 59–60.Google Scholar
• Perchet V, Rigollet P, Chassang S, Snowberg E (2016) Batched bandit problems. Ann. Statist. 44(2):660–681.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pratt JW (1964) Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32(1–2):122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roy AD (1951) Some thoughts on the distribution of earnings. Oxford Econom. Papers 3(2):135–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sävje F, Aronow PM, Hudgens MG (2021) Average treatment effects in the presence of unknown interference. Ann. Statist. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Shamir O (2013) On the complexity of bandit and derivative-free stochastic convex optimization. Conf. Learn. Theory, 3–24.Google Scholar
• Sobel ME (2006) What do randomized studies of housing mobility demonstrate? Causal inference in the face of interference. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 101(476):1398–1407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spall JC (2005) Introduction to Stochastic Search and Optimization: Estimation, Simulation, and Control (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey).Google Scholar
• Spencer J, Sudan M, Xu K (2014) Queuing with future information. Ann. Appl. Probab. 24(5):2091–2142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stolyar AL (2015) Pull-based load distribution in large-scale heterogeneous service systems. Queueing Systems 80(4):341–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sznitman AS (1991) Topics in propagation of chaos. Ecole d’été de probabilités de Saint-Flour XIX—1989 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg), 165–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tang D, Agarwal A, O’Brien D, Meyer M (2010) Overlapping experiment infrastructure: More, better, faster experimentation. Proc. 16th ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining (ACM), 17–26.Google Scholar
• Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, VanderWeele TJ (2012) On causal inference in the presence of interference. Stat. Methods Medical Res. 21(1):55–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train KE (2009) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Tsitsiklis JN, Xu K (2012) On the power of (even a little) resource pooling. Stochastic Systems 2(1):1–66.Link, Google Scholar
• Vvedenskaya ND, Dobrushin RL, Karpelevich FI (1996) Queueing system with selection of the shortest of two queues: An asymptotic approach. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 32(1):20–34.Google Scholar
• Weintraub GY, Benkard CL, Roy BV. (2008) Markov perfect industry dynamics with many firms. Econometrica 76(6):1375–1411.Crossref, Google Scholar