  Marketplace companies rely heavily on experimentation when making changes to
the design or operation of their platforms. The workhorse of experimentation is
the randomized controlled trial (RCT), or A/B test, in which users are randomly
assigned to treatment or control groups. However, marketplace interference
causes the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA) to be violated,
leading to bias in the standard RCT metric. In this work, we propose techniques
for platforms to run standard RCTs and still obtain meaningful estimates
despite the presence of marketplace interference. We specifically consider a
generalized matching setting, in which the platform explicitly matches supply
with demand via a linear programming algorithm. Our first proposal is for the
platform to estimate the value of global treatment and global control via
optimization. We prove that this approach is unbiased in the fluid limit. Our
second proposal is to compare the average shadow price of the treatment and
control groups rather than the total value accrued by each group. We prove that
this technique corresponds to the correct first-order approximation (in a
Taylor series sense) of the value function of interest even in a finite-size
system. We then use this result to prove that, under reasonable assumptions,
our estimator is less biased than the RCT estimator. At the heart of our result
is the idea that it is relatively easy to model interference in matching-driven
marketplaces since, in such markets, the platform intermediates the spillover.
