Unifying On- and Off-Policy Variance Reduction Methods

Online controlled experiments are the gold standard for hypothesis testing in online platforms. Notwithstanding their ubiquity, they are notoriously expensive to run, and issues of variance hamper statistical power in assessing treatment effects. While standard variance reduction techniques leverage model-based control variates to reduce outcome noise, they remain agnostic to potential structural relationships between competing policies. In this work, we identify a critical inefficiency in the standard A/B-testing protocol: when a treatment and control policy agree on an action, the resulting outcome contributes noise but no signal regarding the treatment effect -- unnecessarily inflating confidence intervals. We propose a novel experimental protocol that exploits this policy overlap to accelerate experimentation. The key insight is to frame the randomised treatment assignment mechanism as a meta-policy, and leverage $Δ$-Off-Policy Estimation methods to obtain unbiased estimates for average treatment effects. We prove analytically that our approach recovers standard A/B-testing practices in the general case, but that its variance scales with the divergence between policies rather than raw outcome variance. Hence, we dominate the standard Difference-in-Means estimator whenever policies have common support, and the improvement is strict whenever the overlap region contributes non-zero residual variance. Empirical results corroborate these theoretical insights -- holding promise for significant impact on the real-world evaluation of recommender systems, information retrieval pipelines, and large language model interfaces.

Off-policy evaluation (OPE) for contextual bandit policies becomes challenging when action-level importance weighting incurs excessive variance. Doubly robust (DR) estimation remains unbiased under common support but retains these high-variance action-level weights. A prior estimator, Off-policy evaluation with Conjunct Effect Model (OffCEM), replaces them with more stable cluster-level weights, at the cost of relying on local correctness of the reward model. In this paper, we show that, under the assumptions required by DR and OffCEM, there exists an unbiased family of estimators that interpolates between OffCEM and DR. Building on this result, we propose the Variance Optimal-CEM (VOCEM) estimator, which selects the interpolation coefficient to minimize variance. We derive the population-optimal coefficient in closed form and show that the resulting estimator has variance no larger than either endpoint, OffCEM or DR. Experiments in controlled synthetic settings and on two large-action benchmarks show that VOCEM improves upon both endpoints in all 23 evaluated conditions, exhibiting greater stability and empirical robustness.

Off-policy evaluation (OPE) is essential for assessing ranking and recommendation systems without costly online interventions. Self-Normalised Inverse Propensity Scoring (SNIPS) is a standard tool for variance reduction in OPE, leveraging a multiplicative control variate. Recent advances in off-policy learning suggest that additive control variates (baseline corrections) may offer superior performance, yet theoretical guarantees for evaluation are lacking. This paper provides a definitive answer: we prove that $β^\star$-IPS, an estimator with an optimal additive baseline, asymptotically dominates SNIPS in Mean Squared Error. By analytically decomposing the variance gap, we show that SNIPS is asymptotically equivalent to using a specific -- but generally sub-optimal -- additive baseline. Our results theoretically justify shifting from self-normalisation to optimal baseline corrections for both ranking and recommendation.