-
Disrupting Bipartite Trading Networks: Matching for Revenue Maximization
Authors:
Luca D'Amico-Wong,
Yannai A. Gonczarowski,
Gary Qiurui Ma,
David C. Parkes
Abstract:
We model the role of an online platform disrupting a market with unit-demand buyers and unit-supply sellers. Each seller can transact with a subset of the buyers whom she already knows, as well as with any additional buyers to whom she is introduced by the platform. Given these constraints on trade, prices and transactions are induced by a competitive equilibrium. The platform's revenue is proport…
▽ More
We model the role of an online platform disrupting a market with unit-demand buyers and unit-supply sellers. Each seller can transact with a subset of the buyers whom she already knows, as well as with any additional buyers to whom she is introduced by the platform. Given these constraints on trade, prices and transactions are induced by a competitive equilibrium. The platform's revenue is proportional to the total price of all trades between platform-introduced buyers and sellers.
In general, we show that the platform's revenue-maximization problem is computationally intractable. We provide structural results for revenue-optimal matchings and isolate special cases in which the platform can efficiently compute them. Furthermore, in a market where the maximum increase in social welfare that the platform can create is $ΔW$, we prove that the platform can attain revenue $Ω(ΔW/\log(\min\{n,m\}))$, where $n$ and $m$ are the numbers of buyers and sellers, respectively. When $ΔW$ is large compared to welfare without the platform, this gives a polynomial-time algorithm that guarantees a logarithmic approximation of the optimal welfare as revenue. We also show that even when the platform optimizes for revenue, the social welfare is at least an $O(\log(\min\{n,m\}))$-approximation to the optimal welfare. Finally, we prove significantly stronger bounds for revenue and social welfare in homogeneous-goods markets.
△ Less
Submitted 11 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Platform Equilibrium: Analayzing Social Welfare in Online Market Places
Authors:
Alon Eden,
Gary Qiurui Ma,
David C. Parkes
Abstract:
We introduce the theoretical study of a Platform Equilibrium in a market with unit-demand buyers and unit-supply sellers. Each seller can join a platform and transact with any buyer or remain off-platform and transact with a subset of buyers whom she knows. Given the constraints on trade, prices form a competitive equilibrium and clears the market. The platform charges a transaction fee to all on-…
▽ More
We introduce the theoretical study of a Platform Equilibrium in a market with unit-demand buyers and unit-supply sellers. Each seller can join a platform and transact with any buyer or remain off-platform and transact with a subset of buyers whom she knows. Given the constraints on trade, prices form a competitive equilibrium and clears the market. The platform charges a transaction fee to all on-platform sellers, in the form of a fraction of on-platform sellers' price. The platform chooses the fraction to maximize revenue. A Platform Equilibrium is a Nash equilibrium of the game where each seller decides whether or not to join the platform, balancing the effect of a larger pool of buyers to trade with, against the imposition of a transaction fee.
Our main insights are: (i) In homogeneous-goods markets, pure equilibria always exist and can be found by a polynomial-time algorithm; (ii) When the platform is unregulated, the resulting Platform Equilibrium guarantees a tight $Θ(log(min(m, n)))$-approximation of the optimal welfare in homogeneous-goods markets, where $n$ and $m$ are the number of buyers and sellers respectively; (iii) Even light regulation helps: when the platform's fee is capped at $α\in[0,1)$, the price of anarchy is 2-$α$/1-$α$ for general markets. For example, if the platform takes 30 percent of the seller's revenue, a rather high fee, our analysis implies the welfare in a Platform Equilibrium is still a 0.412-fraction of the optimal welfare. Our main results extend to markets with multiple platforms, beyond unit-demand buyers, as well as to sellers with production costs.
△ Less
Submitted 20 June, 2024; v1 submitted 15 September, 2023;
originally announced September 2023.
-
Platform Behavior under Market Shocks: A Simulation Framework and Reinforcement-Learning Based Study
Authors:
Xintong Wang,
Gary Qiurui Ma,
Alon Eden,
Clara Li,
Alexander Trott,
Stephan Zheng,
David C. Parkes
Abstract:
We study the behavior of an economic platform (e.g., Amazon, Uber Eats, Instacart) under shocks, such as COVID-19 lockdowns, and the effect of different regulation considerations imposed on a platform. To this end, we develop a multi-agent Gym environment of a platform economy in a dynamic, multi-period setting, with the possible occurrence of economic shocks. Buyers and sellers are modeled as eco…
▽ More
We study the behavior of an economic platform (e.g., Amazon, Uber Eats, Instacart) under shocks, such as COVID-19 lockdowns, and the effect of different regulation considerations imposed on a platform. To this end, we develop a multi-agent Gym environment of a platform economy in a dynamic, multi-period setting, with the possible occurrence of economic shocks. Buyers and sellers are modeled as economically-motivated agents, choosing whether or not to pay corresponding fees to use the platform. We formulate the platform's problem as a partially observable Markov decision process, and use deep reinforcement learning to model its fee setting and matching behavior. We consider two major types of regulation frameworks: (1) taxation policies and (2) platform fee restrictions, and offer extensive simulated experiments to characterize regulatory tradeoffs under optimal platform responses. Our results show that while many interventions are ineffective with a sophisticated platform actor, we identify a particular kind of regulation -- fixing fees to optimal, pre-shock fees while still allowing a platform to choose how to match buyer demands to sellers -- as promoting the efficiency, seller diversity, and resilience of the overall economic system.
△ Less
Submitted 4 January, 2023; v1 submitted 24 March, 2022;
originally announced March 2022.
