CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.LG2026-07-02

A More Accurate Algorithm Comparison through A/B Testing using Offline Evaluation Methods

Koki Konishi, Masataka Ushiku, Yuta Saito

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.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.LG2026-07-09

FairSelect: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Level and Intersectional Algorithmic Fairness

Nick Souligne, Isabella Mixton-Garcia, Vignesh Subbian

Algorithmic fairness methods are increasingly used to identify and mitigate bias in machine learning models, yet most approaches are evaluated in isolation and along single demographic axes. This limits practical guidance for selecting fairness strategies, where disparities may a…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LG2026-07-09

Stop Guessing When to Stop Testing: Efficient Model Evaluation with Just Enough Data

Ofir Arviv, Kristjan Greenewald, Yotam Perlitz, Hadar Mulian, Michal Shmueli-Scheuer, Leshem Choshen

The inherent rigidity of fixed-size benchmarks makes them an inefficient tool for model evaluation. Diverse evaluation objectives, including model ranking, model selection and testing throughout development, demand varying levels of statistical power. The mismatch between fixed s…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.LGcs.AI2026-07-24

CEL: Comprehensive Counterfactual Explanations Library and Benchmark

Oleksii Furman, Łukasz Lenkiewicz, Marcel Musiałek, Maciej Zięba

Counterfactual explanations are a prominent approach in explainable artificial intelligence (xAI), providing actionable guidance on what input changes would alter a model's prediction to a desired outcome. While early methods primarily focused on minimal feature changes, recent w…

View free PDFSource page
arxivstat.MLcs.LG2026-07-08

Tensorized algorithms and scalable filtering methods for hidden Markov and factorial hidden Markov models

Roxana Barrios, Ioannis Sgouralis

A common method for the representation and analysis of time-series data is the hidden Markov model (HMM), where each observation is associated with a hidden state that evolves over time. However, many real-world systems are influenced by multiple independent factors, which are mo…

View free PDFSource page