Incentive Alignment in Online Experimentation

Online experiments in ads, recommendation, and member-experience systems are often planned before the dominant interference mechanism is known. A treatment may propagate through budgets, inventory, producer exposure, graph spillovers, or temporal carryover, making the randomization design itself a statistical decision. We formulate this problem as robust design selection over uncertain exposure mechanisms. Given a finite catalog of six implementable designs, the selector compares each design by worst-case planning risk over an ambiguity set. The risk combines exposure bias, assignment-unit variance, minimum detectable effect, contamination or carryover, operational cost, and estimand mismatch. For theoretical justification, the paper develops a geometry-aware guarantee, stating that design bias is bounded by Wasserstein distance to the launch exposure distribution, and this penalty is minimax tight under Lipschitz exposure response. We also prove finite-catalog approximation and a robust selector theorem with excess-risk control, exact recovery under separation, and certified shortlists when the risk surface is flat. Empirically, the same selector gives different recommendations across samples from public datasets. It selects user-randomization on Criteo ads with dimensionless robust risk 1.295, switchbacks on Open Bandit-bts/men with risk 2.105, and cluster-randomization on KuaiRand with risk 2.240. The Open Bandit case stresses known but uneven logging support, with propensities from 0.00006 to 0.594 and a 5.17% IPS effective-sample share. Overall, the paper contributes an interference-aware experiment design framework based on mechanism-robust design decisions, where the output is either a justified design choice or an uncertainty shortlist.

Online evaluation of ranking and retrieval systems often relies on downstream monetization metrics such as app revenue or creator earnings. These metrics are typically heavy-tailed, with a small fraction of users dominating both mean and variance, leading to low statistical power and unreliable conclusions in A/B experiments -- especially under limited traffic. We present a practical framework for variance reduction in online experiments by combining post-stratification with CUPED. Our approach leverages pre-experiment covariates to improve the sensitivity of monetization experiments without requiring additional traffic. Deployed at ShareChat across ranking-driven monetization experiments, the method substantially reduces variance and improves decision stability, achieving equivalent statistical confidence with ~45% less traffic than standard metrics. We further discuss practical design choices, guardrails, and limitations, providing guidance on when post-stratification is appropriate for real-world information retrieval and Recommendation systems.

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.