Most modern recommendation algorithms are data-driven: they generate personalized recommendations by observing users' past behaviors. A common assumption in recommendation is that how a user interacts with a piece of content (e.g., whether they choose to "like" it) is a reflection of the content, but not of the algorithm that generated it. Although this assumption is convenient, it fails to capture user strategization: that users may attempt to shape their future recommendations by adapting their behavior to the algorithm.

Two-sided marketplace platforms often run experiments (or A/B tests) to test the effect of an intervention before launching it platform-wide. A typical approach is to randomize users into a treatment group, which receives the intervention, and a control group, which does not. The platform then compares the performance in the two groups to estimate the effect if the intervention were launched to everyone. We focus on two common experiment types, where the platform randomizes users either on the supply side or on the demand side. For these experiments, it is known that the resulting estimates of the treatment effect are typically biased: individuals in the market compete with each other, which creates interference and leads to a biased estimate. Here, we observe that economic interactions (competition among demand and supply) lead to statistical phenomenon (biased estimates).

We develop an analytical framework to study experimental design in two-sided marketplaces. Many of these experiments exhibit interference, where an intervention applied to one market participant influences the behavior of another participant. This interference leads to biased estimates of the treatment effect of the intervention. We develop a stochastic market model and associated mean field limit to capture dynamics in such experiments and use our model to investigate how the performance of different designs and estimators is affected by marketplace interference effects. Platforms typically use two common experimental designs: demand-side “customer” randomization ([Formula: see text]) and supply-side “listing” randomization ([Formula: see text]), along with their associated estimators. We show that good experimental design depends on market balance; in highly demand-constrained markets, [Formula: see text] is unbiased, whereas [Formula: see text] is biased; conversely, in highly supply-constrained markets, [Formula: see text] is unbiased, whereas [Formula: see text] is biased. We also introduce and study a novel experimental design based on two-sided randomization ([Formula: see text]) where both customers and listings are randomized to treatment and control. We show that appropriate choices of [Formula: see text] designs can be unbiased in both extremes of market balance while yielding relatively low bias in intermediate regimes of market balance. This paper was accepted by David Simchi-Levi, revenue management and market analytics.