Experimental Design in Two-Sided Platforms: An Analysis of Bias

References

• Athey S, Eckles D, Imbens GW (2018) Exact p-values for network interference. Journal Am Stat Assoc 113(521):230–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bajari P, Burdick B, Imbens G, Masoero L, McQueen J, Richardson T, Rosen I (2021) Multiple randomization designs. Preprint, submitted December 27, https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.13495.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. Gretton A, Robert CC, eds., Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, AISTATS 2016, Cadiz, Spain, May 9–11, 2016, volume 51 of JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 1412–1420.Google Scholar
• Blake T, Coey D (2014) Why marketplace experimentation is harder than it seems: The role of test-control interference. Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 567–582, EC ’14 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York).Google Scholar
• Chamandy N (2016) Experimentation in a ridesharing marketplace. Accessed June 20, 2020, https://eng.lyft.com/experimentation-in-a-ridesharing-marketplace-b39db027a66e.Google Scholar
• Fradkin A (2015) Search frictions and the design of online marketplaces. Working paper, NBER.Google Scholar
• Fradkin A (2019) A simulation approach to designing digital matching platforms. SSRN Electronic Journal ISSN 1556-5068.Google Scholar
• Ha-Thuc V, Dutta A, Mao R, Wood M, Liu Y (2020) A counterfactual framework for seller-side a/b testing on marketplaces. Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2288–2296, SIGIR ’20 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York).Google Scholar
• Holtz D (2018) Limiting bias from test-control interference in online marketplace experiments. Ph.D. thesis, https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/117999.Google Scholar
• Holtz D, Lobel R, Liskovich I, Aral S (2020) Reducing interference bias in online marketplace pricing experiments.Google Scholar
• Imbens GW, Rubin DB (2015) Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manski CF (2013) Identification of treatment response with social interactions. Econometrics J 16(1):S1–S23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pouget-Abadie J, Aydin K, Schudy W, Brodersen K, Mirrokni V (2019) Variance reduction in bipartite experiments through correlation clustering. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 32:13288–13298.Google Scholar
• Saveski M, Pouget-Abadie J, Saint-Jacques G, Duan W, Ghosh S, Xu Y, Airoldi EM (2017) Detecting network effects: Randomizing over randomized experiments. Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1027–1035, KDD ’17 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York).Google Scholar
• Sneider C, Tang Y, Tang Y (2019) Experiment rigor for switchback experiment analysis. Accessed June 20, 2020, https://doordash.engineering/2019/02/20/experiment-rigor-for-switchback-experiment-analysis/.Google Scholar
• Ugander J, Karrer B, Backstrom L, Kleinberg J (2013) Graph cluster randomization: Network exposure to multiple universes. Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 329–337, KDD ’13 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York).Google Scholar
• Wager S, Xu K (2019) Experimenting in equilibrium. Preprint, submitted March 6, https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.02124.Google Scholar
• Zigler CM, Papadogeorgou G (2018) Bipartite causal inference with interference. Preprint, submitted July 23, https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08660.Google Scholar