Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Optimal Matching Strategies in Two-sided Markets: A Mean Field Approach

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that dynamic two-sided matching markets with strategic accept/reject decisions have mean-field Nash equilibria given by threshold rules equal to value functions, and proves global existence and conditional uniqueness

desk verdict Strong MFG paper: the central well-posedness and verification results for two-sided dynamic matching with mutual acceptance are real and largely correct, but Lemma 2.3's threshold-equivalence proof is incomplete and the numerics oversell. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.26531 v2 pith:3WP6U2Z6 submitted 2025-09-30 math.OC

Erhan Bayraktar , Dantong Chu , Bohan Li , Ho Man Tai This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 35Q8945K0549N8091B3991B68
keywords two-sidedmatchingmeanfieldNashequilibriumHJB-Fokker-PlancksystemthresholdpoliciesoptimalstoppinglabormarketsdefectiveprobabilitydensitiesPoissonmeetingprocesses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to prove that a dynamic two-sided matching market—two populations of agents who meet through stochastic arrivals, decide whether to accept a partner, and enter permanent one-to-one matches—has a well-defined strategic equilibrium. It models each side's acceptance standard as a threshold that can change over time, and asks when a quadruple of thresholds and quality distributions is self-consistent. The main claim is that this equilibrium is exactly described by a coupled system of two backward Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman equations and two forward Fokker–Planck equations for 'defective' densities of unmatched agents. The paper proves global-in-time existence of solutions, uniqueness under a short-horizon or structural condition, and a verification theorem: the value functions themselves are the optimal thresholds, and the solution is a mean-field Nash equilibrium. If correct, this gives a tractable bridge from individual search behavior to aggregate matching outcomes, with predictions about who waits, who matches, and how sorting by quality is imperfect.

What carries the argument

The central object is the fully coupled HJB–FP system: backward HJB equations for value functions V_A and V_B with nonlocal integrals over the opposite population's density, and forward Fokker–Planck equations for defective probability densities f_A and f_B that decay when mutual acceptance occurs. The two populations are coupled through value functions and their inverses, with the matching region for a type-A agent of quality x at time t being the interval [V_A(x,t), V_B^{-1}(x,t)]. The existence proof is a fixed-point argument on a compact set of time-dependent probability measures, built from local contractive solvers for decoupled HJB and FP equations; the verification theorem shows that

What would settle it

Compute the optimal stopping value Ṽ_I(x,s;0,0,s) from Problem 2.2 directly for a bi-Lipschitz instance: if for some time s it is not strictly increasing in x, then Lemma 2.3's constructed threshold u*_I fails to lie in U_I and the verification theorem would not cover the unrestricted game. Alternatively, simulate a finite population with N agents per side and compare empirical equilibrium thresholds to the HJB–FP solution; divergence as N grows would falsify the mean-field characterization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under Assumptions 3.1–3.3, the fully coupled HJB–FP system (3.13)–(3.17) admits a global solution; under condition (C.I) or (C.II) the solution is unique; and any such solution gives a mean-field Nash equilibrium of the original two-sided matching game. The value functions V_A and V_B are strictly increasing in own quality and serve directly as optimal acceptance thresholds, so equilibrium strategies belong to the threshold class. Existence does not require standard monotonicity conditions on the coupling because the controlled dynamics are purely Poisson-driven; uniqueness requires either a sufficiently short time horizon or a structural smallness condition. The construction also yields qua

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every optimal stopping strategy is equivalently a threshold strategy strictly increasing in own quality (Lemma 2.3); if optimal acceptance boundaries could be non-monotone, the coupled HJB–FP system would characterize only a restricted game, not the unrestricted equilibrium.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Equilibrium strategies are strictly increasing threshold policies: higher-quality agents demand higher-quality partners, and this monotonicity makes the inverse-threshold construction well defined.
  • Under condition (C.I) or (C.II), the equilibrium is unique, so comparative statics and numerical computation are unambiguous within this model class.
  • A no-matching equilibrium arises when both sides' discounted running-plus-terminal outside options exceed the expected benefit of matching; one side's willingness to match cannot overcome the other side's reluctance.
  • If the product of the two selectivity indices K_A K_B is at most one, matching regions are nonempty everywhere and the market remains active; otherwise it can stagnate.
  • Conditional partner-quality distributions overlap across adjacent quality bands, so equilibrium matching is imperfectly sorted and permits upward mobility.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The existence proof avoids standard monotonicity conditions on the coupling, so the same fixed-point machinery may extend to other Poisson-driven mean-field games with two interacting populations.
  • The model is posed directly at the mean-field level; a finite-population propagation-of-chaos justification is absent, so an immediate test is whether N-agent equilibria converge to the HJB–FP solution as N grows.
  • The graphon formulation in Remark 2.5 suggests a path to general multi-type or network markets: replacing the two-block structure by a richer graphon could yield analogous existence and uniqueness results.
  • Lemma 3.1's strict positivity of unmatched fractions implies the market never fully clears, which could be read as an endogenous source of search frictions and tested against labor-market data on persistent vacancy-unemployment coexistence.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a continuum mean field game for dynamic two-sided matching. Each agent is characterized by a quality level and an unmatched/matched status; unmatched agents meet opposite-type agents by Poisson processes and choose time-dependent acceptance thresholds. The central object is the fully coupled HJB–FP system (3.13)–(3.17) for the value/threshold functions and the defective densities of unmatched agents. The authors prove global existence (Theorem 3.1), conditional uniqueness (Theorem 3.2), and a verification theorem (Theorem 3.3) asserting that the PDE solution yields a mean field Nash equilibrium. A numerical section calibrates initial quality distributions to U.S. weekly-earnings quantiles and reports threshold dynamics, matching probabilities, and partner-quality distributions in a labor-market interpretation.

Significance. If the threshold-game formulation is accepted as the scope, this is a substantial contribution. The derivation from the Poisson meeting mechanism to the survival ODE (3.4), the reduction of the HJB equation to (3.10), and the verification argument in Appendix C form a coherent chain. The existence proof via Schauder’s fixed-point theorem on a compact set of time-dependent probability measures is a genuine technical achievement for a two-population nonlocal HJB–FP system, and the uniqueness conditions in Theorem 3.2 are explicit and checkable. The numerical study is calibrated to public BLS data rather than being purely illustrative. The main weakness is the paper’s advertised equivalence between unrestricted optimal stopping and threshold policies: Lemma 2.3 asserts strict monotonicity of the constructed threshold without proving it, and the later monotonicity result (Lemma A.5) applies only to the HJB system under Assumptions 3.2–3.3. This does not invalidate Theorem 3.3, which verifies optimality within the threshold class, but it does mean the broader ‘optimal stopping’ interpretation is not currently justified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.3, Lemma 2.3] This lemma is load-bearing for the paper’s claim that Problems 2.1 and 2.2 are equivalent. The proof defines u*_I(x,s) := V~_I(x,s;0,0,s) and asserts u*_I ∈ U_I, where U_I requires strict increase in x. No proof of strict monotonicity is given at this point: the argument only derives necessary conditions from the dynamic programming equation at the first meeting. Strict monotonicity is proved later, in Lemma A.5, but only for the solution of the HJB system under Assumptions 3.2–3.3, not for the optimal stopping value in Lemma 2.3. Since the threshold form is used throughout Section 3 and in the interpretation of Theorem 3.3, this gap should be fixed. Please either prove Lemma 2.3 under explicit monotonicity/regularity assumptions or explicitly state that the main equilibrium result is for the threshold-constrained game and remove the unrestricted-equivalence claim.
  2. [Section 3.3, Lemma 3.2] The proof of V*_I(0,t)=0 is not valid as written. It invokes (V*_I)^{-1}(0,t), but if V*_I(0,t)>0 the inverse is not defined on [0,∞), so the inequality (V*_I)^{-1}(0,t) ≤ x for all x ≥ 0 is circular. The lemma is not used in Theorems 3.1–3.3, but it is stated as a qualitative property of the equilibrium; it should either be proved from the HJB equation or removed/downgraded.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A.2, Proposition A.2] The integral-form display after the statement of Proposition A.2 omits the ‘∧ 0’ that appears in the FP equations (A.30)–(A.31). Since f_A,f_B ≥ 0 the wedge is redundant, but the equations should be written consistently.
  2. [Appendix D, Step (3)] The formula for f^{n+1}_A is typographically ambiguous: the placement of Δt and the denominator is unclear. Please clarify whether the update is f^n/(1+Δt·rate), f^n exp(−Δt·rate), or another semi-implicit form, and make the analogous formula for f^{n+1}_B consistent.
  3. [Assumption 2.1] The meeting mechanism assumes a continuum of agents and thins the Poisson meeting rate by the unmatched fraction F_J(t). This is standard in mean field game modeling, but the paper does not discuss conditions under which this is a valid macroscopic limit of a finite-N system. A brief remark acknowledging this as a continuum modeling assumption would be helpful.
  4. [Section 4.2] The claim that the model can ‘accurately predict empirical phenomena’ is stronger than what the numerical experiment supports: the data are used only to calibrate initial distributions, not to compare equilibrium outcomes with independent empirical moments. Consider softening this wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the HJB–FP system is derived from dynamic programming and survival probabilities, existence/uniqueness are proved, and the verification theorem establishes the equilibrium; the one fragile point (Lemma 2.3 monotonicity) is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is forward and self-contained. Section 3.1.2 derives the HJB equation (3.7) from a dynamic programming/small-time expansion, and (3.10) is shown to be equivalent to (3.7) by identifying the maximizer z*=V_I; no target equilibrium quantity is inserted as an input. The FP equation (3.11)-(3.12) follows from the survival probability identity (2.8) and the meeting mechanism, not from assuming the conclusion. Theorem 3.1 proves existence via a Schauder fixed-point argument on the explicitly constructed map Phi, Theorem 3.2 proves uniqueness from coefficients under (C.I)/(C.II), and Theorem 3.3 verifies that a solution of the PDE system attains the supremum in Problem 2.1 and yields the consistent distribution; this is a verification theorem, not a tautology. The numerical experiments calibrate only the initial distributions f_{A,0}, f_{B,0} from BLS quantile data and then solve the forward system; the reported matching patterns, thresholds, and partner-quality densities are outputs rather than refitted targets. Self-citations ([7],[8],[9]) appear only in the literature review/graphon discussion and are explicitly said to be non-applicable to the nonstandard model, so they are not load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The one fragile point is Lemma 2.3: it asserts u_I^* in U_I (strict monotonicity) without proving it in that section, and the later proof of strict monotonicity (Lemma A.5) is given under Assumptions 3.2-3.3. This is an omitted-proof/correctness gap in the unrestricted equivalence, not a circular reduction: the main equilibrium results are stated and proved for the threshold Problem 2.1 and do not define the PDE solution as the equilibrium by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The atom-at-zero probability measure in the proof is a technical compactification device. The free parameters are the hand-set economic inputs (meeting intensities, payoff slopes, terminal utilities, domain truncation plus the data-fitted initial distribution parameters). The axioms are standard Poisson-process mathematics and domain assumptions about how meetings, matches, and payoffs work; the most fragile is the Lemma 2.3 threshold-equivalence premise.

free parameters (5)
  • Poisson meeting intensities λ_A=20, λ_B=26 = 20 per year (job seekers), 26 per year (firms)
    Hand-set in §4.1 to represent roughly biweekly per-agent contact rates; no estimation and no sensitivity analysis.
  • Running payoff slopes r_A=0.013x, r_B=0.05y = 0.013 (from OECD net replacement rate 0.23 / annuity 17.47); 0.05
    r_A is partly data-derived; r_B=0.05 is hand-set as 'slightly above the discount rate' (§4.1) with no empirical source.
  • Terminal utility slopes h_A=0.6x, h_B=1.1y = 0.6 and 1.1
    Chosen by hand (§4.1) with qualitative justifications (aging workers; technological progress). These values drive the asymmetric threshold patterns in §4.2, and the repeated-market interpretation would require h_I to equal the next period's value function, which is not enforced.
  • Initial distribution parameters (α,ν,τ; β,μ,σ) = 1.8644, 6.5492, 0.44209; 8.6348, 459.44, 835.22
    Fitted to five BLS 2024Q3 weekly-earnings quantiles by RRMSE minimization (Table 2); disclosed calibration with external data, RRMSE 0.51% and 0.33%.
  • Truncated domain [0,7000] and horizon T=1 = 7000 (thousands USD), T=1 year
    Numerical/illustrative choices; the theory is on R≥0, so the truncation and the discretization are not covered by the theorems.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.1: Poisson meeting with thinning at rate λ_J F_J(t) and independent sampling from π_{J,t−}
    Underlies the survival-probability ODE (3.4) and the product-form matching rate λ_J μ_J([u_I, u_J^{-1}]). The infinite-population law-of-large-numbers justification is not proven (no propagation of chaos).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.2: FCFS matching, binding, permanent, one-to-one matches
    Defines the matching time (2.4); one-to-one-ness is handled by mean-field independence rather than explicit collision resolution.
  • domain assumption Lemma 2.3 equivalence: any optimal stopping strategy is representable by a threshold u*_I ∈ U_I strictly increasing in own quality
    Load-bearing for restricting the strategy space and for reading V*_I as the optimal threshold; strict monotonicity of the constructed u*_I is asserted without proof in the lemma and supplied later only under Assumptions 3.2–3.3.
  • domain assumption Assumptions 3.1–3.3: polynomial-tailed initial densities; bi-Lipschitz running and terminal payoffs with strictly positive slopes
    Delivers the H_I class (strict monotonicity of V, invertibility), compactness of A_I, and the wedge estimates in Propositions 3.1–3.2. The fitted Pareto tail (α≈1.86) implies ν≈0.86 is feasible, but the uniform constants C_I are not computed for the fitted data.
  • standard math Defective-density embedding device: μ_I = p_I δ_0 + g_I dL with an atom at 0
    Technical measure-theoretic construction in Appendix A (Step 1, Lemma A.2) that converts defective densities into probability measures for compactness; does not change the PDE system at the fixed point.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Matching Strategies in Two-sided Markets: A Mean Field Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3WP6U2Z6

@misc{pith2026250926531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Matching Strategies in Two-sided Markets: A Mean Field Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3WP6U2Z6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.26531}
}
read the original abstract

This paper develops a mean field game framework for dynamic two-sided matching markets, extending existing matching theory by integrating micro-macro dynamics in two-sided environments. Unlike traditional matching models focusing on static equilibrium or unilateral optimization, our framework simultaneously captures dynamic interactions and strategic behaviors of both market sides, as well as the equilibrium. We model two types of agents who meet each other via Poisson processes and make simultaneous matching decisions to maximize their respective objective functionals, and find the corresponding equilibrium. Our approach formulates the equilibrium as a fully coupled Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman and Fokker-Planck system with nonlocal structure coupling two distinct populations. The mathematical analysis addresses significant challenges from the dual-layered coupling structure and nonlocal structure. We also provide insights into individual behaviors shaping aggregate patterns in labor markets through numerical experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.26531 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Possible scenarios for meetings (a). The sampled type-J agent is already matched, i.e., STJ,(τ J 1,t)− = 1; (b). The sampled type-J agent is unmatched (STJ,(τ J 1,t)− = 0), but the quality level of type-I agent fails to meet the acceptance criterion of the sampled type-J agent (x < uJ(QLJ,(τ J 1,t)− ,(τ J 1,t) −)); (c). The sampled type-J agent is unmatched (STJ,(τ J 1,t)− = 0), and the type-I agent meets the accept… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dynamic mean field Nash game The main goal of this article is to solve the following problem: Problem 2.3 (mean field Nash equilibrium). We aim to find a quadruple (u ∗ A, u∗ B, π∗ A,· , π∗ B,· ) such that for any I, J ∈ {A, B} with I 6= J: • The control u ∗ I solves Problem 2.1 under the pair (u ∗ J , π∗ J,· ), that is, JI(u ∗ I ; x, 0, u∗ J , π∗ J,· ) ≥ JI(uI; x, 0, u∗ J , π∗ J,· ) for any uI ∈ UI and x ∈ XI; • Th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Fitted cumulative distribution functions and dat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Value functions (optimal thresholds) VA and VB against quality levels x and y, for selected values of time t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: indicates that the remaining unmatched agents become increasingly concentrated in the lower-quality region, particularly as t → 1 −. It is because high-quality agents tend to match earlier due to their higher attractiveness and greater chances of satisfying both sides’…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Unmatched rates FA and FB against time t, for selected percentile bands of quality levels 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 t = 0; t = 0.3; t = 0.6; t = 0.9; 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 t = 0; t = 0.3; t = 0.6; t = …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ratios of defective probability densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Probability densities of the quality level of the m [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?fs[0]=Topic%2C1% 7CEmployment%23JOB%23%7CBenefits%252C%2 2024

    OECD employment and social protection data, net replace ment rates in unemployment. https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?fs[0]=Topic%2C1% 7CEmployment%23JOB%23%7CBenefits%252C%2 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Adan and G

    I. Adan and G. Weiss. Exact FCFS matching rates for two infi nite multitype sequences. Operations Research, 60(2):475–489, 2012

    2012

  3. [3]

    N. Agarwal. An empirical model of the medical match. American Economic Review , 105(7):1939–1978, 2015

    1939

  4. [4]

    Alonso-Mora, S

    J. Alonso-Mora, S. Samaranayake, A. Wallar, E. Frazzoli , and D. Rus. On-demand high- capacity ride-sharing via dynamic trip-vehicle assignmen t. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 114(3):462–467, 2017

    2017

  5. [5]

    Asmussen and H

    S. Asmussen and H. Albrecher. Ruin Probabilities . WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2nd edition, 2010

    2010

  6. [6]

    Aurell, R

    A. Aurell, R. Carmona, and M. Lauri` ere. Stochastic grap hon games: II. The linear-quadratic case. Applied Mathematics & Optimization , 85(3), 2022

    2022

  7. [7]

    Bayraktar, A

    E. Bayraktar, A. Budhiraja, and A. Cohen. Rate control un der heavy traffic with strategic servers. The Annals of Applied Probability , 29(1):1 – 35, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Bayraktar and B

    E. Bayraktar and B. Han. Equilibrium transport with time -inconsistent costs. Mathematics of Operations Research, 0(0), 2025

    2025

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Bayraktar, R

    E. Bayraktar, R. Wu, and X. Zhang. Propagation of chaos of forward–backward stochas- tic differential equations with graphon interactions. Applied Mathematics & Optimization , 88(1):25, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    P. E. Caines and M. Huang. Graphon mean field games and the GMFG equations. In 2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 4129–4134, 2018. 37

    2018

  3. [11]

    Carmona and F

    R. Carmona and F. Delarue. Probabilistic Theory of Mean Field Games with Applications I: Mean Field FBSDEs, Control, and Games , volume 83. Springer, 2018

    2018

  4. [12]

    Chiappori

    P.-A. Chiappori. The theory and empirics of the marriag e market. Annual Review of Eco- nomics, 12(1):547–578, 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    P. A. Diamond. Aggregate demand management in search eq uilibrium. Journal of Political Economy, 90(5):881–894, 1982

    1982

  6. [14]

    D. Duffie, L. Qiao, and Y. Sun. Dynamic directed random mat ching. Journal of Economic Theory, 174:124–183, 2018

    2018

  7. [15]

    D. Duffie, L. Qiao, and Y. Sun. Continuous time random matc hing. The Annals of Applied Probability, 35(3):1755 – 1790, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Duffie and Y

    D. Duffie and Y. Sun. Existence of independent random matc hing. The Annals of Applied Probability, 17(1):386 – 419, 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    Echenique, J

    F. Echenique, J. Root, and F. Sandomirskiy. Stable matc hing as transportation. In Pro- ceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computatio n, EC , volume 24, page 418, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Figalli and F

    A. Figalli and F. Glaudo. An invitation to optimal transport, Wasserstein distances , and gradient flows. EMS Textb. Math. Berlin: European Mathematical Society (E MS), 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Gale and L

    D. Gale and L. S. Shapley. College admissions and the sta bility of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly , 69(1):9–15, 1962

    1962

  12. [20]

    Hosseini and A

    R. Hosseini and A. Shourideh. Retirement financing: An o ptimal reform approach. Econo- metrica, 87(4):1205–1265, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Huang, R

    M. Huang, R. P. Malham´ e, and P. E. Caines. Large populat ion stochastic dynamic games: closed-loop Mckean-Vlasov systems and the Nash certainty e quivalence principle. Commu- nications in Information & Systems , 6(3):221–252, 2006

    2006

  14. [22]

    Jadon, A

    A. Jadon, A. Patil, and S. Jadon. A comprehensive survey of regression-based loss functions for time series forecasting. In International Conference on Data Management, Analytics & Innovation, pages 117–147. Springer, 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Lacker and A

    D. Lacker and A. Soret. A label-state formulation of sto chastic graphon games and approx- imate equilibria on large networks. Mathematics of Operations Research , 48(4):1987–2018, 2023

    1987

  16. [24]

    Lasry and P.-L

    J.-M. Lasry and P.-L. Lions. Mean field games. Japanese Journal of Mathematics , 2(1):229– 260, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    R. Li, X. Ye, H. Zhou, and H. Zha. Learning to match via inv erse optimal transport. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 20(80):1–37, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Y. Li, A. Dimakis, and C. A. Courcoubetis. Repositionin g, ride-matching, and abandon- ment in on-demand ride-hailing platforms: A mean field game a pproach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.02346, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    R. E. Lucas Jr and B. Moll. Knowledge growth and the alloc ation of time. Journal of Political Economy, 122(1):1–51, 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    J. J. McCall. Economics of information and job search. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 84(1):113–126, 1970

    1970

  21. [29]

    K. Menzel. Large matching markets as two-sided demand s ystems. Econometrica, 83(3):897– 941, 2015

    2015

  22. [30]

    D. T. Mortensen. Matching: Finding a partner for life or otherwise. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1):S215–S240, 1988

    1988

  23. [31]

    F.-P. Paty, P. Chon´ e, and F. Kramarz. Algorithms for we ak optimal transport with an application to economics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09825 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Perthame, E

    B. Perthame, E. Ribes, and D. Salort. Career plans and wa ge structures: A mean field game 38 approach. Mathematics in Engineering , 1(1):47–63, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    M. Poschke. Who becomes an entrepreneur? Labor market p rospects and occupational choice. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control , 37(3):693–710, 2013

    2013

  26. [34]

    W. J. Reed and M. Jorgensen. The double Pareto-lognorma l distribution—A new parametric model for size distributions. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods , 33(8):1733– 1753, 2004

    2004

  27. [35]

    S. M. Ross. Stochastic Processes. John Wiley & Sons, 1995

    1995

  28. [36]

    A. E. Roth and M. A. O. Sotomayor. Two-Sided Matching: A Study in Game-Theoretic Modeling and Analysis. Econometric Society Monographs. Cambridge University Pr ess, 1990

    1990

  29. [37]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 5: Quartiles and selected deciles of usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by selected ch aracteristics, third quarter 2024 averages. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/wkyeng_10172024.pdf, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    C. Villani. Optimal Transport: Old and New , volume 338. Springer, 2009. A Proof of Theorem 3.1: Global Existence of System (3.13)-(3.17) In this section, we establish the global-in-time existence of solution to the system ( 3.13)-(3.17) under Assumptions 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Fir...

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.