$t$-Testing the Waters: Empirically Validating Assumptions for Reliable A/B-Testing

A/B-tests are a cornerstone of experimental design on the web, with wide-ranging applications and use-cases. The statistical $t$-test comparing differences in means is the most commonly used method for assessing treatment effects, often justified through the Central Limit Theorem (CLT). The CLT ascertains that, as the sample size grows, the sampling distribution of the Average Treatment Effect converges to normality, making the $t$-test valid for sufficiently large sample sizes. When outcome measures are skewed or non-normal, quantifying what "sufficiently large" entails is not straightforward. To ensure that confidence intervals maintain proper coverage and that $p$-values accurately reflect the false positive rate, it is critical to validate this normality assumption. We propose a practical method to test this, by analysing repeatedly resampled A/A-tests. When the normality assumption holds, the resulting $p$-value distribution should be uniform, and this property can be tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. This provides an efficient and effective way to empirically assess whether the $t$-test's assumptions are met, and the A/B-test is valid. We demonstrate our methodology and highlight how it helps to identify scenarios prone to inflated Type-I errors. Our approach provides a practical framework to ensure and improve the reliability and robustness of A/B-testing practices.

Powerful A/B-Testing Metrics and Where to Find Them

Online controlled experiments, colloquially known as A/B-tests, are the bread and butter of real-world recommender system evaluation. Typically, end-users are randomly assigned some system variant, and a plethora of metrics are then tracked, collected, and aggregated throughout the experiment. A North Star metric (e.g. long-term growth or revenue) is used to assess which system variant should be deemed superior. As a result, most collected metrics are supporting in nature, and serve to either (i) provide an understanding of how the experiment impacts user experience, or (ii) allow for confident decision-making when the North Star metric moves insignificantly (i.e. a false negative or type-II error). The latter is not straightforward: suppose a treatment variant leads to fewer but longer sessions, with more views but fewer engagements; should this be considered a positive or negative outcome? The question then becomes: how do we assess a supporting metric's utility when it comes to decision-making using A/B-testing? Online platforms typically run dozens of experiments at any given time. This provides a wealth of information about interventions and treatment effects that can be used to evaluate metrics' utility for online evaluation. We propose to collect this information and leverage it to quantify type-I, type-II, and type-III errors for the metrics of interest, alongside a distribution of measurements of their statistical power (e.g. $z$-scores and $p$-values). We present results and insights from building this pipeline at scale for two large-scale short-video platforms: ShareChat and Moj; leveraging hundreds of past experiments to find online metrics with high statistical power.

$Δ\text{-}{\rm OPE}$: Off-Policy Estimation with Pairs of Policies

The off-policy paradigm casts recommendation as a counterfactual decision-making task, allowing practitioners to unbiasedly estimate online metrics using offline data. This leads to effective evaluation metrics, as well as learning procedures that directly optimise online success. Nevertheless, the high variance that comes with unbiasedness is typically the crux that complicates practical applications. An important insight is that the difference between policy values can often be estimated with significantly reduced variance, if said policies have positive covariance. This allows us to formulate a pairwise off-policy estimation task: $\Delta\text{-}{\rm OPE}$. $\Delta\text{-}{\rm OPE}$ subsumes the common use-case of estimating improvements of a learnt policy over a production policy, using data collected by a stochastic logging policy. We introduce $\Delta\text{-}{\rm OPE}$ methods based on the widely used Inverse Propensity Scoring estimator and its extensions. Moreover, we characterise a variance-optimal additive control variate that further enhances efficiency. Simulated, offline, and online experiments show that our methods significantly improve performance for both evaluation and learning tasks.

Optimal Baseline Corrections for Off-Policy Contextual Bandits

The off-policy learning paradigm allows for recommender systems and general ranking applications to be framed as decision-making problems, where we aim to learn decision policies that optimize an unbiased offline estimate of an online reward metric. With unbiasedness comes potentially high variance, and prevalent methods exist to reduce estimation variance. These methods typically make use of control variates, either additive (i.e., baseline corrections or doubly robust methods) or multiplicative (i.e., self-normalisation). Our work unifies these approaches by proposing a single framework built on their equivalence in learning scenarios. The foundation of our framework is the derivation of an equivalent baseline correction for all of the existing control variates. Consequently, our framework enables us to characterize the variance-optimal unbiased estimator and provide a closed-form solution for it. This optimal estimator brings significantly improved performance in both evaluation and learning, and minimizes data requirements. Empirical observations corroborate our theoretical findings.

Multi-Objective Recommendation via Multivariate Policy Learning

Real-world recommender systems often need to balance multiple objectives when deciding which recommendations to present to users. These include behavioural signals (e.g. clicks, shares, dwell time), as well as broader objectives (e.g. diversity, fairness). Scalarisation methods are commonly used to handle this balancing task, where a weighted average of per-objective reward signals determines the final score used for ranking. Naturally, how these weights are computed exactly, is key to success for any online platform. We frame this as a decision-making task, where the scalarisation weights are actions taken to maximise an overall North Star reward (e.g. long-term user retention or growth). We extend existing policy learning methods to the continuous multivariate action domain, proposing to maximise a pessimistic lower bound on the North Star reward that the learnt policy will yield. Typical lower bounds based on normal approximations suffer from insufficient coverage, and we propose an efficient and effective policy-dependent correction for this. We provide guidance to design stochastic data collection policies, as well as highly sensitive reward signals. Empirical observations from simulations, offline and online experiments highlight the efficacy of our deployed approach.

Learning Metrics that Maximise Power for Accelerated A/B-Tests

Online controlled experiments are a crucial tool to allow for confident decision-making in technology companies. A North Star metric is defined (such as long-term revenue or user retention), and system variants that statistically significantly improve on this metric in an A/B-test can be considered superior. North Star metrics are typically delayed and insensitive. As a result, the cost of experimentation is high: experiments need to run for a long time, and even then, type-II errors (i.e. false negatives) are prevalent. We propose to tackle this by learning metrics from short-term signals that directly maximise the statistical power they harness with respect to the North Star. We show that existing approaches are prone to overfitting, in that higher average metric sensitivity does not imply improved type-II errors, and propose to instead minimise the $p$-values a metric would have produced on a log of past experiments. We collect such datasets from two social media applications with over 160 million Monthly Active Users each, totalling over 153 A/B-pairs. Empirical results show that we are able to increase statistical power by up to 78% when using our learnt metrics stand-alone, and by up to 210% when used in tandem with the North Star. Alternatively, we can obtain constant statistical power at a sample size that is down to 12% of what the North Star requires, significantly reducing the cost of experimentation.

Variance Reduction in Ratio Metrics for Efficient Online Experiments

Online controlled experiments, such as A/B-tests, are commonly used by modern tech companies to enable continuous system improvements. Despite their paramount importance, A/B-tests are expensive: by their very definition, a percentage of traffic is assigned an inferior system variant. To ensure statistical significance on top-level metrics, online experiments typically run for several weeks. Even then, a considerable amount of experiments will lead to inconclusive results (i.e. false negatives, or type-II error). The main culprit for this inefficiency is the variance of the online metrics. Variance reduction techniques have been proposed in the literature, but their direct applicability to commonly used ratio metrics (e.g. click-through rate or user retention) is limited. In this work, we successfully apply variance reduction techniques to ratio metrics on a large-scale short-video platform: ShareChat. Our empirical results show that we can either improve A/B-test confidence in 77% of cases, or can retain the same level of confidence with 30% fewer data points. Importantly, we show that the common approach of including as many covariates as possible in regression is counter-productive, highlighting that control variates based on Gradient-Boosted Decision Tree predictors are most effective. We discuss the practicalities of implementing these methods at scale and showcase the cost reduction they beget.

Learning-to-Rank with Nested Feedback

Many platforms on the web present ranked lists of content to users, typically optimized for engagement-, satisfaction- or retention- driven metrics. Advances in the Learning-to-Rank (LTR) research literature have enabled rapid growth in this application area. Several popular interfaces now include nested lists, where users can enter a 2nd-level feed via any given 1st-level item. Naturally, this has implications for evaluation metrics, objective functions, and the ranking policies we wish to learn. We propose a theoretically grounded method to incorporate 2nd-level feedback into any 1st-level ranking model. Online experiments on a large-scale recommendation system confirm our theoretical findings.

On Gradient Boosted Decision Trees and Neural Rankers: A Case-Study on Short-Video Recommendations at ShareChat

Practitioners who wish to build real-world applications that rely on ranking models, need to decide which modelling paradigm to follow. This is not an easy choice to make, as the research literature on this topic has been shifting in recent years. In particular, whilst Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDTs) have reigned supreme for more than a decade, the flexibility of neural networks has allowed them to catch up, and recent works report accuracy metrics that are on par. Nevertheless, practical systems require considerations beyond mere accuracy metrics to decide on a modelling approach. This work describes our experiences in balancing some of the trade-offs that arise, presenting a case study on a short-video recommendation application. We highlight (1) neural networks' ability to handle large training data size, user- and item-embeddings allows for more accurate models than GBDTs in this setting, and (2) because GBDTs are less reliant on specialised hardware, they can provide an equally accurate model at a lower cost. We believe these findings are of relevance to researchers in both academia and industry, and hope they can inspire practitioners who need to make similar modelling choices in the future.

Ad-load Balancing via Off-policy Learning in a Content Marketplace

Ad-load balancing is a critical challenge in online advertising systems, particularly in the context of social media platforms, where the goal is to maximize user engagement and revenue while maintaining a satisfactory user experience. This requires the optimization of conflicting objectives, such as user satisfaction and ads revenue. Traditional approaches to ad-load balancing rely on static allocation policies, which fail to adapt to changing user preferences and contextual factors. In this paper, we present an approach that leverages off-policy learning and evaluation from logged bandit feedback. We start by presenting a motivating analysis of the ad-load balancing problem, highlighting the conflicting objectives between user satisfaction and ads revenue. We emphasize the nuances that arise due to user heterogeneity and the dependence on the user's position within a session. Based on this analysis, we define the problem as determining the optimal ad-load for a particular feed fetch. To tackle this problem, we propose an off-policy learning framework that leverages unbiased estimators such as Inverse Propensity Scoring (IPS) and Doubly Robust (DR) to learn and estimate the policy values using offline collected stochastic data. We present insights from online A/B experiments deployed at scale across over 80 million users generating over 200 million sessions, where we find statistically significant improvements in both user satisfaction metrics and ads revenue for the platform.