促进配对平台上的伙伴搜索:限制代理行为

Yashodhan Kanoria, D. Sabán
{"title":"促进配对平台上的伙伴搜索:限制代理行为","authors":"Yashodhan Kanoria, D. Sabán","doi":"10.1145/3033274.3084092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two-sided matching platforms, such as those for labor, accommodation, dating, and taxi hailing, can control and optimize over many aspects of the search for partners. To understand how the search for partners should be designed, we consider a dynamic model of search by strategic agents with costly discovery of pair-specific match value. We find that in many settings, the platform can mitigate wasteful competition in partner search via restricting what agents can see/do. For medium-sized screening costs (relative to idiosyncratic variation in utilities), the platform should prevent one side of the market from exercising choice (similar to Instant Book on Airbnb), whereas for large screening costs, the platform should centrally determine matches (similar to taxi hailing marketplaces). Surprisingly, simple restrictions can improve social welfare even when screening costs are small, and agents on each side are ex-ante homogeneous. In asymmetric markets where agents on one side have a tendency to be more selective (due to smaller screening costs or greater market power), the platform should force the more selective side of the market to reach out first, by explicitly disallowing the less selective side from doing so. This allows the agents on the less selective side to exercise more choice in equilibrium.When agents are vertically differentiated, forcing one side of the market to propose results in a significant increase in welfare even in the limit of vanishing screening costs. Furthermore, a Pareto improvement in welfare is possible in this limit: the weakest agents can be helped without hurting other agents. In addition, in this setting the platform can further boost welfare by hiding quality information.","PeriodicalId":287551,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Facilitating the Search for Partners on Matching Platforms: Restricting Agent Actions\",\"authors\":\"Yashodhan Kanoria, D. Sabán\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3033274.3084092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Two-sided matching platforms, such as those for labor, accommodation, dating, and taxi hailing, can control and optimize over many aspects of the search for partners. To understand how the search for partners should be designed, we consider a dynamic model of search by strategic agents with costly discovery of pair-specific match value. We find that in many settings, the platform can mitigate wasteful competition in partner search via restricting what agents can see/do. For medium-sized screening costs (relative to idiosyncratic variation in utilities), the platform should prevent one side of the market from exercising choice (similar to Instant Book on Airbnb), whereas for large screening costs, the platform should centrally determine matches (similar to taxi hailing marketplaces). Surprisingly, simple restrictions can improve social welfare even when screening costs are small, and agents on each side are ex-ante homogeneous. In asymmetric markets where agents on one side have a tendency to be more selective (due to smaller screening costs or greater market power), the platform should force the more selective side of the market to reach out first, by explicitly disallowing the less selective side from doing so. This allows the agents on the less selective side to exercise more choice in equilibrium.When agents are vertically differentiated, forcing one side of the market to propose results in a significant increase in welfare even in the limit of vanishing screening costs. Furthermore, a Pareto improvement in welfare is possible in this limit: the weakest agents can be helped without hurting other agents. In addition, in this setting the platform can further boost welfare by hiding quality information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":287551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3033274.3084092\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3033274.3084092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

摘要

劳务、住宿、约会、打车等双向匹配平台,可以控制和优化寻找伴侣的多个方面。为了理解如何设计合作伙伴的搜索,我们考虑了一个战略代理的动态搜索模型,该模型具有发现特定于配对的匹配值的代价。我们发现,在许多情况下,该平台可以通过限制代理可以看到/做什么来减轻合作伙伴搜索中的浪费竞争。对于中等筛选成本(相对于公用事业的特殊变化),平台应该阻止市场的一方进行选择(类似于Airbnb上的Instant Book),而对于高筛选成本,平台应该集中确定匹配(类似于出租车市场)。令人惊讶的是,即使在筛查成本很小的情况下,简单的限制也能改善社会福利,而且双方的代理人事前都是同质的。在不对称市场中,一方的代理商倾向于更有选择性(由于更小的筛选成本或更大的市场力量),平台应该通过明确禁止不那么有选择性的一方这样做,迫使更有选择性的一方先伸出手来。这允许较少选择的代理在均衡中行使更多的选择。当代理人垂直分化时,迫使市场的一方提出,即使在筛查成本消失的极限下,福利也会显著增加。此外,在这个极限下,福利的帕累托改进是可能的:最弱的代理人可以在不伤害其他代理人的情况下得到帮助。此外,在这种情况下,平台可以通过隐藏高质量信息来进一步提高福利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Facilitating the Search for Partners on Matching Platforms: Restricting Agent Actions
Two-sided matching platforms, such as those for labor, accommodation, dating, and taxi hailing, can control and optimize over many aspects of the search for partners. To understand how the search for partners should be designed, we consider a dynamic model of search by strategic agents with costly discovery of pair-specific match value. We find that in many settings, the platform can mitigate wasteful competition in partner search via restricting what agents can see/do. For medium-sized screening costs (relative to idiosyncratic variation in utilities), the platform should prevent one side of the market from exercising choice (similar to Instant Book on Airbnb), whereas for large screening costs, the platform should centrally determine matches (similar to taxi hailing marketplaces). Surprisingly, simple restrictions can improve social welfare even when screening costs are small, and agents on each side are ex-ante homogeneous. In asymmetric markets where agents on one side have a tendency to be more selective (due to smaller screening costs or greater market power), the platform should force the more selective side of the market to reach out first, by explicitly disallowing the less selective side from doing so. This allows the agents on the less selective side to exercise more choice in equilibrium.When agents are vertically differentiated, forcing one side of the market to propose results in a significant increase in welfare even in the limit of vanishing screening costs. Furthermore, a Pareto improvement in welfare is possible in this limit: the weakest agents can be helped without hurting other agents. In addition, in this setting the platform can further boost welfare by hiding quality information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信