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.

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.

Additive control variates give rise to baseline corrections [16], regression adjustments [15], and doubly robust The off-policy learning paradigm allows for recommender systems estimators [13]. Multiplicative control variates lead to selfnormalised and general ranking applications to be framed as decision-making estimators [32, 59]. Previous work has proven that for problems, where we aim to learn decision policies that optimize off-policy learning tasks, the multiplicative control variates can an unbiased offline estimate of an online reward metric. With unbiasedness be re-framed using an equivalent additive variate [6, 30], enabling comes potentially high variance, and prevalent methods mini-batch optimization methods to be used. We note that the exist to reduce estimation variance. These methods typically make self-normalised estimator is only asymptotically unbiased: a clear use of control variates, either additive (i.e., baseline corrections or disadvantage for evaluation with finite samples. The common problem doubly robust methods) or multiplicative (i.e., self-normalisation). which most existing methods tackle is that of variance reduction Our work unifies these approaches by proposing a single framework in offline value estimation, either for learning or for evaluation. The built on their equivalence in learning scenarios. The foundation common solution is the application of a control variate, either multiplicative of our framework is the derivation of an equivalent baseline or additive [42].

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.

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.

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.

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.

Approaches to recommendation are typically evaluated in one of two ways: (1) via a (simulated) online experiment, often seen as the gold standard, or (2) via some offline evaluation procedure, where the goal is to approximate the outcome of an online experiment. Several offline evaluation metrics have been adopted in the literature, inspired by ranking metrics prevalent in the field of Information Retrieval. (Normalised) Discounted Cumulative Gain (nDCG) is one such metric that has seen widespread adoption in empirical studies, and higher (n)DCG values have been used to present new methods as the state-of-the-art in top-$n$ recommendation for many years. Our work takes a critical look at this approach, and investigates when we can expect such metrics to approximate the gold standard outcome of an online experiment. We formally present the assumptions that are necessary to consider DCG an unbiased estimator of online reward and provide a derivation for this metric from first principles, highlighting where we deviate from its traditional uses in IR. Importantly, we show that normalising the metric renders it inconsistent, in that even when DCG is unbiased, ranking competing methods by their normalised DCG can invert their relative order. Through a correlation analysis between off- and on-line experiments conducted on a large-scale recommendation platform, we show that our unbiased DCG estimates strongly correlate with online reward, even when some of the metric's inherent assumptions are violated. This statement no longer holds for its normalised variant, suggesting that nDCG's practical utility may be limited.

Off-Policy Estimation (OPE) methods allow us to learn and evaluate decision-making policies from logged data. This makes them an attractive choice for the offline evaluation of recommender systems, and several recent works have reported successful adoption of OPE methods to this end. An important assumption that makes this work is the absence of unobserved confounders: random variables that influence both actions and rewards at data collection time. Because the data collection policy is typically under the practitioner's control, the unconfoundedness assumption is often left implicit, and its violations are rarely dealt with in the existing literature. This work aims to highlight the problems that arise when performing off-policy estimation in the presence of unobserved confounders, specifically focusing on a recommendation use-case. We focus on policy-based estimators, where the logging propensities are learned from logged data. We characterise the statistical bias that arises due to confounding, and show how existing diagnostics are unable to uncover such cases. Because the bias depends directly on the true and unobserved logging propensities, it is non-identifiable. As the unconfoundedness assumption is famously untestable, this becomes especially problematic. This paper emphasises this common, yet often overlooked issue. Through synthetic data, we empirically show how na\"ive propensity estimation under confounding can lead to severely biased metric estimates that are allowed to fly under the radar. We aim to cultivate an awareness among researchers and practitioners of this important problem, and touch upon potential research directions towards mitigating its effects.

In this paper we propose RecFusion, which comprise a set of diffusion models for recommendation. Unlike image data which contain spatial correlations, a user-item interaction matrix, commonly utilized in recommendation, lacks spatial relationships between users and items. We formulate diffusion on a 1D vector and propose binomial diffusion, which explicitly models binary user-item interactions with a Bernoulli process. We show that RecFusion approaches the performance of complex VAE baselines on the core recommendation setting (top-n recommendation for binary non-sequential feedback) and the most common datasets (MovieLens and Netflix). Our proposed diffusion models that are specialized for 1D and/or binary setups have implications beyond recommendation systems, such as in the medical domain with MRI and CT scans.