A/B testing has become a gold standard for modern technological companies to conduct policy evaluation. Yet, its application to time series experiments, where policies are sequentially assigned over time, remains challenging. Existing designs suffer from two limitations: (i) they do not fully leverage the entire history for treatment allocation; (ii) they rely on strong assumptions to approximate the objective function (e.g., the mean squared error of the estimated treatment effect) for optimizing the design. We first establish an impossibility theorem showing that failure to condition on the full history leads to suboptimal designs, due to the dynamic dependencies in time series experiments. To address both limitations simultaneously, we next propose a transformer reinforcement learning (RL) approach which leverages transformers to condition allocation on the entire history and employs RL to directly optimize the MSE without relying on restrictive assumptions. Empirical evaluations on synthetic data, a publicly available dispatch simulator, and a real-world ridesharing dataset demonstrate that our proposal consistently outperforms existing designs.

We study the design and analysis of switchback experiments conducted on a single aggregate unit. The design problem is to partition the continuous time space into intervals and switch treatments between intervals, in order to minimize the estimation error of the treatment effect. We show that the estimation error depends on four factors: carryover effects, periodicity, serially correlated outcomes, and impacts from simultaneous experiments. We derive a rigorous bias-variance decomposition and show the tradeoffs of the estimation error from these factors. The decomposition provides three new insights in choosing a design: First, balancing the periodicity between treated and control intervals reduces the variance; second, switching less frequently reduces the bias from carryover effects while increasing the variance from correlated outcomes, and vice versa; third, randomizing interval start and end points reduces both bias and variance from simultaneous experiments. Combining these insights, we propose a new empirical Bayes design approach. This approach uses prior data and experiments for designing future experiments. We illustrate this approach using real data from a ride-sharing platform, yielding a design that reduces MSE by 33% compared to the status quo design used on the platform.

This paper offers a detailed investigation of switchback designs in A/B testing, which alternate between baseline and new policies over time. Our aim is to thoroughly evaluate the effects of these designs on the accuracy of their resulting average treatment effect (ATE) estimators. We propose a novel "weak signal analysis" framework, which substantially simplifies the calculations of the mean squared errors (MSEs) of these ATEs in Markov decision process environments. Our findings suggest that (i) when the majority of reward errors are positively correlated, the switchback design is more efficient than the alternating-day design which switches policies in a daily basis. Additionally, increasing the frequency of policy switches tends to reduce the MSE of the ATE estimator. (ii) When the errors are uncorrelated, however, all these designs become asymptotically equivalent. (iii) In cases where the majority of errors are negative correlated, the alternating-day design becomes the optimal choice. These insights are crucial, offering guidelines for practitioners on designing experiments in A/B testing. Our analysis accommodates a variety of policy value estimators, including model-based estimators, least squares temporal difference learning estimators, and double reinforcement learning estimators, thereby offering a comprehensive understanding of optimal design strategies for policy evaluation in reinforcement learning.

The field of precision medicine aims to tailor treatment based on patient-specific factors in a reproducible way. To this end, estimating an optimal individualized treatment regime (ITR) that recommends treatment decisions based on patient characteristics to maximize the mean of a pre-specified outcome is of particular interest. Several methods have been proposed for estimating an optimal ITR from clinical trial data in the parallel group setting where each subject is randomized to a single intervention. However, little work has been done in the area of estimating the optimal ITR from crossover study designs. Such designs naturally lend themselves to precision medicine, because they allow for observing the response to multiple treatments for each patient. In this paper, we introduce a method for estimating the optimal ITR using data from a 2x2 crossover study with or without carryover effects. The proposed method is similar to policy search methods such as outcome weighted learning; however, we take advantage of the crossover design by using the difference in responses under each treatment as the observed reward. We establish Fisher and global consistency, present numerical experiments, and analyze data from a feeding trial to demonstrate the improved performance of the proposed method compared to standard methods for a parallel study design.