August 11, 2013
Many online experiments exhibit dependence between users and items. For example, in online advertising, observations that have a user or an ad in common are likely to be associated. Because of this, even in experiments involving millions of subjects, the difference in mean outcomes between control and treatment conditions can have substantial variance. Previous theoretical and simulation results demonstrate that not accounting for this kind of dependence structure can result in confidence intervals that are too narrow, leading to inaccurate hypothesis tests.
We develop a framework for understanding how dependence affects uncertainty in user-item experiments and evaluate how bootstrap methods that account for differing levels of dependence perform in practice. We use three real datasets describing user behaviors on Facebook – user responses to ads, search results, and News Feed stories – to generate data for synthetic experiments in which there is no effect of the treatment on average by design. We then estimate empirical Type I error rates for each bootstrap method. Accounting for dependence within a single type of unit (i.e., within-user dependence) is often sufficient to get reasonable error rates. But when experiments have effects, as one might expect in the field, accounting for multiple units with a multiway bootstrap can be necessary to get close to the advertised Type I error rates. This work provides guidance to practitioners evaluating large-scale experiments, and highlights the importance of analysis of inferential methods for dependence structures common to online systems.
June 27, 2025
Vasu Agrawal, Akinniyi Akinyemi, Kathryn Alvero, Morteza Behrooz, Julia Buffalini, Fabio Maria Carlucci, Joy Chen, Junming Chen, Zhang Chen, Shiyang Cheng, Praveen Chowdary, Joe Chuang, Antony D'Avirro, Jon Daly, Ning Dong, Mark Duppenthaler, Cynthia Gao, Jeff Girard, Martin Gleize, Sahir Gomez, Hongyu Gong, Srivathsan Govindarajan, Brandon Han, Sen He, Denise Hernandez, Yordan Hristov, Rongjie Huang, Hirofumi Inaguma, Somya Jain, Raj Janardhan, Qingyao Jia, Christopher Klaiber, Dejan Kovachev, Moneish Kumar, Hang Li, Yilei Li, Pavel Litvin, Wei Liu, Guangyao Ma, Jing Ma, Martin Ma, Xutai Ma, Lucas Mantovani, Sagar Miglani, Sreyas Mohan, Louis-Philippe Morency, Evonne Ng, Kam-Woh Ng, Tu Anh Nguyen, Amia Oberai, Benjamin Peloquin, Juan Pino, Jovan Popovic, Omid Poursaeed, Fabian Prada, Alice Rakotoarison, Alexander Richard, Christophe Ropers, Safiyyah Saleem, Vasu Sharma, Alex Shcherbyna, Jie Shen, Anastasis Stathopoulos, Anna Sun, Paden Tomasello, Tuan Tran, Arina Turkatenko, Bo Wan, Chao Wang, Jeff Wang, Mary Williamson, Carleigh Wood, Tao Xiang, Yilin Yang, Zhiyuan Yao, Chen Zhang, Jiemin Zhang, Xinyue Zhang, Jason Zheng, Pavlo Zhyzheria, Jan Zikes, Michael Zollhoefer
June 27, 2025
June 13, 2025
Ido Guy, Daniel Haimovich, Fridolin Linder, Nastaran Okati, Lorenzo Perini, Niek Tax, Mark Tygert
June 13, 2025
June 11, 2025
Florian Bordes, Quentin Garrido, Justine Kao, Adina Williams, Mike Rabbat, Emmanuel Dupoux
June 11, 2025
June 10, 2025
Benno Krojer, Mojtaba Komeili, Candace Ross, Quentin Garrido, Koustuv Sinha, Nicolas Ballas, Mido Assran
June 10, 2025
April 08, 2021
Caner Hazirbas, Joanna Bitton, Brian Dolhansky, Jacqueline Pan, Albert Gordo, Cristian Canton Ferrer
April 08, 2021
April 30, 2018
Tomer Galanti, Lior Wolf, Sagie Benaim
April 30, 2018
April 30, 2018
Yedid Hoshen, Lior Wolf
April 30, 2018
December 11, 2019
Eliya Nachmani, Lior Wolf
December 11, 2019
Our approach
Latest news
Foundational models