A/b Testing

Evaluating the causal effect of new features is a central goal for online platforms. While recent literature addresses limited testing traffic via centralized portfolio optimization, this perspective abstracts away a critical institutional reality: experimentation is operationally decentralized. The experimenters who develop new features also dictate which hypotheses to test, and they are typically rewarded based on empirical average treatment effects that are prone to upward bias. Left unchecked, this principal-agent conflict can severely erode platform value, a structural failure that conventional centralized levers, such as significance thresholds and traffic budgets, cannot resolve. By reframing experimentation as an incentive design problem, we demonstrate that two practical mechanisms, sample splitting and shrinkage, can effectively bridge this gap. Sample splitting aligns incentives perfectly at a bounded traffic cost, while shrinkage consumes no additional traffic and guarantees that interventions with negative expected effects are strictly unprofitable to field.

Generative AI has dramatically accelerated the rate at which new treatments---from novel pharmaceuticals to online marketing campaigns---can be conceived and deployed. As a result, modern experimentation platforms often run continuously, with treatments added as they are ready and removed when they underperform. We formalize this "Always-On" experimental setting, in which treatments can be dynamically generated, added to, and removed from a running experiment, and study the statistical problem of deciding whether to accept or reject each treatment while controlling for the false discovery rate. We develop sequential tests that achieve time-uniform Type-I error control under arbitrary stopping times and "predictable" treatment schedules. Our approach builds on the testing-by-betting framework: we construct test supermartingales for testing the average treatment effect of each treatment, and show that the construction of these test supermartingales is growth-rate optimal in an almost-sure sense.

Online A/B experiments are the decision standard for user engagement, but traffic and readout time limit how many conversational-AI changes can be tested. We ask whether an offline signal designed to be computable without treatment-arm user exposure agrees with the outcomes of those experiments. We contribute a reusable construction and diagnosis checklist that treats an offline proxy as a chain of three alignments: behavioral label to product outcome, learned classifier to candidate-assistant behavior, and aggregated offline signal to experiment effect. A companion evaluation protocol audits the whole composite by interval-aware decision agreement, which compares offline and online confidence intervals instead of point estimates, and by within-experiment ranking. The instantiation we evaluate comprises a fixed evaluation suite on which candidate behavior is scored, an engagement classifier trained to predict session/prompt level engagements, and a calibration layer mapping sample-level score differences to online model-level engagement deltas. We then report the audit: 489 paired offline-online contrasts (one candidate arm against its control) from 27 experiments on a deployed multi-turn assistant, spanning model checkpoints to system-prompt tuning. Our primary test uses the 113 contrasts from eight experiments that ran after the map was frozen: on these the composite reaches 81.1% F1, against 34.3% for the raw classifier score it is built on, and makes no wrong-direction calls where that raw score makes 31. Every offline prediction was computed before its experiment ran to prevent overfitting. The evidence supports using the composite to prioritize candidates before scarce experiment traffic is allocated---in our deployment of the experiment, selecting among training checkpoints and tuning system prompts.

A/B testing requires large sample sizes, long timelines, and significant costs. When auxiliary predictions of experimental outcomes are available from machine learning models, uncertain prediction quality precludes replacing human experiments entirely, yet these predictions may still contain useful signal. We propose a principled framework for learning-augmented hypothesis testing that leverages predictions of unknown quality to reduce sample sizes while maintaining statistical validity. Predictions naturally vary in granularity, from coarse aggregate signals to fine-grained individual-level estimates, and our framework addresses both ends of this spectrum: (1) for population-level directional predictions, where only a binary signal on the treatment effect sign is available, we use an asymmetric test and prove consistency and robustness bounds within the learning-augmented algorithms paradigm; (2) for individual-level predictions, we introduce Generalized PPI++ (GPPI), extending Prediction-Powered Inference to handle nonlinear prediction errors through higher-dimensional transformations. Both methods benefit from accurate predictions while remaining robust to inaccurate or adversarial ones. We validate our framework using persona-based LLM simulations, where AI agents equipped with user personas predict individual behavior, as a natural prediction source spanning both granularity levels. Experiments on four real-world datasets demonstrate that our methods, combined with persona-based predictions, substantially reduce experimental costs while preserving rigorous statistical validity.

Batched multi-armed bandits update on a service's own schedule, and the usual implementation carries each arm's absolute reward rate from one update to the next. When the shared level moves between batches, that memory goes stale even though the comparisons between arms may not have. Odds-Ratio Thompson Sampling (OR-TS) instead carries the joint posterior over log-odds contrasts and fits the common level afresh in every batch, marginalizing it out. This paper specifies that update, places it inside a Bayesian bandit agent with two controls, decay for how much past evidence survives an update and aggressiveness for how sharply belief becomes allocation, and evaluates it against absolute-rate memory. Across 86 public A/B series the level varies about twenty-five times more than the contrast. In prespecified synthetic environments a moving level costs absolute-rate memory five times the regret and leaves the best arm below a majority of traffic in 7 of 20 runs, against none for OR-TS. In a policy simulation built from 71 real experiments, where the contrasts are too small to resolve, expected-click differences stay within 0.1% for 58 of them, yet contrast memory still ends on the better arm more than twice as often. Where the contrasts themselves move, the bet fails, and that case is reported too.

Coding-agent benchmarks are built for broad and comprehensive comparisons, not frequent development decisions. Individual runs vary, full suites are expensive, and the benchmark harness may differ from the harness used in practice. In a resampling analysis of DeepSWE's published trials, only 19.5% of tasks (22 of 113) had a fifth-percentile Pearson correlation of at least 0.50 with full-benchmark performance. The paper presents DeltaSelect, an open-source method that identifies tasks whose one-run results consistently track full-benchmark performance using Pearson correlation, maps fractional verifier results to a common score using linear regression, and selects a fixed task set within a dollar budget. DeltaSelect is intended for repeated baseline-versus-candidate comparisons during development, not model rankings. In a gpt-5.6-luna low-reasoning case study, DeltaSelect was used to revise custom skills and instructions. Across 13 evaluations, the recorded cost was USD 27.86 at rates published August 16, 2026. The adopted version cost 58.1% less than the initial version (USD 1.75 versus USD 4.18; p=0.008), while the calibrated score was higher (42.36% versus 36.46%; published-analog variance p=0.326).

In online A/B tests for real-time bidding (RTB), control and treatment models are typically trained on a shared serving log that includes data generated by the counterpart model. This shared-log training biases each model's training data through two channels: the counterpart model may have selected a different ad from the ad-candidate pool (ad-ranking disagreement) and may have bid a different price (bid-pricing disagreement), potentially distorting the A/B test outcome. Log-splitting eliminates the bias but sacrifices training data; log-sharing retains all data but leaves the bias unaddressed. We formalize the Bid-Aware Filter Family (BAFF), a class of (k,l)-parameterized hard filters that controls tolerance to each channel independently, providing a structured search space between these two extremes. We further propose a three-stage online measurement protocol that enables evaluating data-sharing strategies by their deviation from an interference-free reference model in production. In offline simulation, a (k,l) sweep surfaces operating points with smaller deviation from the interference-free reference model than both log-sharing and log-splitting. In a live RTB deployment on a demand-side platform (DSP), filter-based variants preserve the reference model's business metrics (e.g., CPC, CTR) more closely than both baselines. The best operating point is setting-dependent, underscoring the practical value of the search space itself.

A/B testing is the gold standard for evaluating product changes, but each experiment requires real user traffic, engineering effort, and weeks of measurement. We propose a simulation framework that predicts A/B test outcomes using LLM-powered agents conditioned on data-driven personas grounded in real user behavioral signals. Unlike prior work that relies on synthetic or rule-based personas, our agents are constructed from anonymized behavioral data-activity patterns, engagement signals, and inferred demographics-enabling more faithful population modeling. We frame A/B test simulation as a structured question task and systematically study (i) question design formats, (ii) the impact of persona data source and domain alignment, (iii) the trade-off between per-persona behavioral depth and population diversity, and (iv) efficient population subsampling. On a benchmark of 40 A/B tests spanning two metric types, our best configuration achieves 0.75-0.90 directional accuracy depending on the test metric, demonstrating that data-driven personas are a viable path toward fast, low-cost experiment pre-screening.

Online platforms increasingly compare many adaptive decision policies---ranking systems, recommendation algorithms, pricing rules, and language-model agents---while each reward-bearing interaction can be costly or risky. A direct A/B/n design gives each of $J$ policies its own horizon-$T$ trajectory and therefore uses $JT$ outcomes. We introduce Tree-Coupled A/B Testing (\TCAB), an exact feedback-sharing design for arbitrary history-dependent contextual-bandit policies. At each round, a predictable tree connects the current policy histories; every parent--child context--action law is maximally coupled, and one reward is shared within each component of matched tree edges. Every policy retains exactly its standalone finite-horizon trajectory law, even though the policies are deliberately dependent. If $D_{e,t}$ records a mismatch on tree edge $e$ at round $t$, the number of reward queries satisfies the pathwise identity $N(T)=T+\sum_{t,e}D_{e,t}$ and hence equals $T$ plus cumulative tree-edge total variation in expectation. This cost is conditionally optimal among exact edge-local designs on the selected tree, and a current-round minimum-spanning tree is myopically optimal among tree designs. For fixed $J$, sublinear pseudo-regret of every policy and almost-sure uniqueness of the oracle action imply $\mathbb{E}[N(T)]=T+o(T)$, versus $JT$ for independent runs. We also obtain finite-sample variance bounds for pairwise policy contrasts. Experiments on reward-model evaluation, multiple-choice language-model evaluation, and adaptive search policies demonstrate substantial improvements in the cost--precision frontier.

On two-sided content platforms, symmetric two-sided isolation (assigning matched fractions of creators and viewers to isolated treatment and control submarkets) is widely used for creator-side and cold-start experiments because it removes cross-arm marketplace interference. Isolation, however, thins each viewer's candidate catalog, and intuition suggests the resulting engagement cost should fade as the platform grows: a small fraction of a vast catalog is still vast. We show that, in an order-statistics model of engagement, whether this intuition holds depends on the upper tail of match quality. Extreme-value theory yields tail-class loss laws with a sharp dichotomy: for light or bounded tails the loss vanishes as the candidate pool grows, whereas under heavy tails it converges to a size-independent constant, so expanding the candidate pool, even by orders of magnitude, does not asymptotically eliminate the cost. Evidence from two production experiments on a platform with millions of active creators is consistent with this picture: a pure A/A traffic sweep reveals a measurable, depth-graded engagement cost; a one-sided catalog ablation independently shows that per-viewer thinning contributes to the loss; and a tail index calibrated on the small exploration pool predicts an effect consistent with the one observed in the far larger full-catalog ablation. Isolation thus carries a price that experimenters should budget for, like any other cost. We give practitioners a preflight procedure that estimates it before launch, sizes traffic accordingly, and recommends a fallback design when the predicted cost exceeds a chosen tolerance.

A/B testing remains the standard for rolling out new features in the technology industry. Each experiment, however, consumes real traffic, engineering effort, and weeks of wall-clock time. Can AI agents---conditioned on behavioral profiles and contextual descriptions of the intervention---simulate outcomes accurately enough to vet candidate treatments before committing live traffic? We formalize this question as a \emph{Simulated Randomized Controlled Trial} (S-RCT) and derive a two-layer error decomposition that separates agent approximation error from subsampling error, enabling targeted improvements to each. The framework is agent-agnostic: any behavioral model---from a fine-tuned specialist to a general-purpose foundation model---can serve as the simulation engine. Validated on 67 historical marketing A/B tests, a baseline S-RCT using an off-the-shelf foundation model captures directional signal (sign overlap 0.70) but systematically overshoots effect magnitudes. A two-phase pre-period calibration protocol reduces the squared prediction error (after removing irreducible measurement noise) by ${\sim}77\times$; a within-subject design---where each agent is exposed to both arms---reduces standard errors by ${\sim}2.4\times$. We discuss limitations of the current approach and identify applications where experimenters stand to benefit from agentic signals.

Ad creative optimization is increasingly constrained by evaluation rather than generation. Generative models can produce many plausible creatives, but reliable evaluation requires online experiments, in which only a limited slate can be tested. We study how to use data from historical A/B tests to generate and select the candidates in that slate. We developed and deployed a performance-driven offline-to-online workflow that guides creative generation with a predictive model as an inference-time critic. In the offline phase, we use a predictive model trained on historical experiments to rank and refine variants created by a generative model. A final test slate is then deployed in an online adaptive experiment. In a 50-arm field experiment, we found that the best creative generated with this method yielded 45.1% higher engagement than the best human-authored creative. Two additional experiments showed the same upper-tail pattern, with lifts of 46.7% and 36.2%. We found that despite the predictive model being too noisy to directly identify the best creative offline, it effectively guides the generative model toward creating strong candidates that can be efficiently evaluated in an adaptive experiment. The results suggest a design principle for creative optimization with generative models: use predictive models to guide generation of a slate to test, judge the slate by whether it contains high-performing candidates at a feasible test size, and use adaptive experiments to select among candidates while limiting traffic lost to weak arms.

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.

A/B testing is the gold standard for selecting the better algorithm in online services. While offline evaluation has attracted attention as a safer alternative due to the high experimental costs and the potential risk of degrading user experience and revenue in A/B testing, it is widely recognized that the estimation accuracy of offline evaluation is substantially lower. As a result, final selection decisions are typically made through A/B testing. Contrary to this conventional view, we reveal a counterintuitive phenomenon in which A/B testing can produce a higher algorithm selection error rate than offline evaluation. This occurs because the sample mean estimator used in A/B testing does not induce positive correlation, which is crucial for reducing critical selection errors, namely underestimating the truly superior algorithm and overestimating the truly inferior one. In contrast, offline evaluation methods unintentionally generate this beneficial correlation by relying on shared offline data when estimating and comparing the performance of multiple algorithms. Building on this insight, we propose an estimator that intentionally induces positive correlation to improve algorithm selection in A/B testing. The key idea is to introduce a hypothetical middle algorithm and to estimate the performance difference between algorithms A, M, and B in a stepwise manner using shared data at each step. This approach enables the application of offline evaluation techniques in each step, thereby inducing positive correlation and reducing critical selection errors. Furthermore, we derive the optimal middle algorithm regarding the resulting variance and analyze its advantages over existing methods through bias-variance analysis. Experiments on real-world data demonstrate that our estimator achieves the same selection error rate as existing approaches while using only one half of the A/B testing data.

A/B testing has become the gold standard for data-driven decision-making in large-scale online experimentation, providing critical guidance for feature launch, pricing optimization, and user experience enhancement. To maximize statistical sensitivity, many technology companies routinely employ Controlled-experiment Using Pre-Experiment Data (CUPED), a technique that achieves substantial variance reduction while preserving the unbiasedness of estimating the average treatment effect. Despite its widespread adoption, several critical methodological and practical nuances of CUPED remain underexplored. This paper systematically addresses five frequently encountered yet overlooked questions regarding the application of CUPED. First, we provide a comparative analysis of various post-CUPED estimators to identify the optimal adjustment specification. Second, we evaluate the validity of regression-based adjustments and delineate robust variance estimation methods tailored for such frameworks. Finally, we extend our investigation to complex but common scenarios, including multi-arm experiments and two-stage sampling designs. Our findings reveal that in these settings, naive reliance on standard variance estimators can lead to severely misleading inferences. By offering rigorous theoretical insights and extensive experimental validation, this work deepens the conceptual understanding of CUPED. Notably, the recommended methodologies have been successfully deployed and integrated into ByteDance's experimentation platform.

Organizations and researchers show increasing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in place of human participants in A/B tests, in the hope of experimenting faster and at lower cost. We study when a treatment effect estimated on LLM outcomes can recover the effect for the human population of interest. Distributional equivalence between LLM and human outcomes would make any standard estimator valid but is unrealistic. We therefore develop a statistical framework that adapts surrogate endpoint theory to LLMs, showing that calibrating LLM outcomes to human outcomes identifies the average treatment effect under surrogacy and comparability conditions that are jointly weaker than distributional equivalence. We present a falsification test for surrogacy and a bound on the worst-case bias from limited overlap between the LLM and human samples. We further show that the stochasticity inherent to LLMs can weaken surrogacy for identification while also introducing bias and variance during estimation, but that using an average over multiple LLM draws per unit as the surrogate mitigates these issues. Simulations validate the results, and an empirical application to the Upworthy Research Archive dataset shows that raw LLM outputs recover only 39% of the human treatment effect while nonparametric calibration closes the gap. A central takeaway is that A/B testing on LLM responses is correct only by assumption, whereas A/B testing on humans is correct by design, and that the required assumptions are hardest to justify precisely where LLMs promise the greatest benefit. We discuss the choice of LLM, prompting, and temperature as design variables, the compounded challenge posed by long-term outcomes, and how to size human pilot studies for validation.

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.

Generative surveying -- where collections of LLM-based personas provide feedback on messages -- has emerged as a cheap and scalable alternative to traditional market research. However, LLMs are sensitive to small variations in prompt design and conclusions drawn from generative surveys may depend on arbitrary phrasing choices. Controlling for this sensitivity requires including semantically equivalent perturbations in the analysis. In this paper, we show that standard hypothesis tests, including the sign test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, are invalid under a statistical model for generative surveying that includes realistic perturbation structure. We propose a permutation test that is valid under this model and formally characterize the conditions under which standard tests fail. Applying our framework to a simple generative surveying problem, we estimate relevant parameters, characterize the power of the permutation test under realistic conditions, and provide practical guidance on budget allocation across personas, perturbations, and replicates. Finally, we show that both the magnitude and direction of the estimated effect are sensitive to the choice of model, even within the same model family.

A/B testing remains the gold standard for evaluating modifications to e-commerce storefronts, yet it diverts traffic, requires weeks to reach statistical significance, and risks degrading user experience. We present SimGym, a framework for simulating A/B tests on e-commerce storefronts using vision-language model (VLM) agents operating in a live browser. The framework comprises three key components: (a) a traffic-grounded persona generation pipeline that derives per-shop buyer archetypes and intents from production clickstream data; (b) a live-browser agent architecture that combines multimodal perception over visual and browser-structured observations with episodic memory and guardrails to conduct coherent shopping sessions across control and treatment storefronts; and (c) an evaluation protocol that compares simulated outcome shifts with observed shifts in real buyer behavior. We validate SimGym on A/B tests of visually driven UI theme changes from a major e-commerce platform across diverse storefronts and product categories. Empirical results show that SimGym agents achieve strong agreement with observed outcome shifts, attaining 77% directional alignment with add-to-cart shifts observed across interface variants in real-buyer traffic. It reduces experimental cycles from weeks to under an hour, enabling rapid experimentation without exposing real buyers to candidate variants.

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.

In streaming platforms churn is extremely costly, yet A/B tests are typically evaluated using outcomes observed within a limited experimental horizon. Even when both short- and predicted long-term engagement metrics are considered, they may fail to capture how a treatment affects users' retention. Consequently, an intervention may appear beneficial in the short term and neutral in the long term while still generating lower total value than the control due to users churn. To address this limitation, we introduce a method that estimates long-term treatment effects (LTE) and residual lifetime value change ($ΔERLV$) in short multi-cohort A/B tests under user learning. To estimate time-varying treatment effects efficiently, we introduce an inverse-variance weighted estimator that combines multiple cohorts estimates, reducing variance relative to standard approaches in the literature. The estimated treatment trajectory is then modeled as a parametric decay to recover both the asymptotic treatment effect and the cumulative value generated over time. Our framework enables simultaneous evaluation of steady-state impact and residual user value within a single experiment. Empirical results show improved precision in estimating LTE and $ΔERLV$ and identify scenarios in which relying on either short-term or long-term metrics alone would lead to incorrect product decisions.