Always-On Experimentation

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.

Experimental design has emerged as a powerful approach for improving the sample efficiency of A/B testing, yet existing designs rely critically on correctly specified models. We study robust sequential experimental design under model misspecification and develop a unified framework that covers both contextual bandit and dynamic settings. Theoretically, we prove that our design bounds the worst-case mean squared error of the estimated treatment effect. Empirically, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach using synthetic and real-world datasets from a leading technology company.

AI-generated covariates from notes, conversations, images, and wearable streams can change the causal question when their roles are left unspecified. A generated feature may represent a treatment version, pre-action state, history, design variable, mediator, outcome proxy, observation process, or intercurrent event; these roles are not interchangeable. We formulate a causal type discipline for sequential experiments: a versioned representation map, a causal role classifier, a claim-status filter, and an estimand lock. The lock fixes a standardized proximal effect before generated covariates enter the analysis. Under audit correctness and standard identification assumptions, admissible role assignments preserve this estimand. We apply the established conditional-covariance characterization of compression bias to substitution of generated representations for design-relevant states. A standardized decomposition separates compression, conditional-law, and standardization drift. Further results cover mediator adjustment, post-action leakage, marker-intervention conflation, outcome-guided discovery, and state-measurement error. Cluster-level orthogonal estimators distinguish empirical and superpopulation targets under repeated sessions and missing outcomes. Simulations show that refinement helps when it retains design-relevant information, whereas design erasure, leakage, and same-data marker selection can produce bias or undercoverage. The framework places causal semantics and claim status before confirmatory inference with generated representations.