On the Complexity of A/B Testing

Abstract

A/B testing refers to the task of determining the best option among two alternatives that yield random outcomes. We provide distribution-dependent lower bounds for the performance of A/B testing that improve over the results currently available both in the fixed-confidence (or delta-PAC) and fixed-budget settings. When the distribution of the outcomes are Gaussian, we prove that the complexity of the fixed-confidence and fixed-budget settings are equivalent, and that uniform sampling of both alternatives is optimal only in the case of equal variances. In the common variance case, we also provide a stopping rule that terminates faster than existing fixed-confidence algorithms. In the case of Bernoulli distributions, we show that the complexity of fixed-budget setting is smaller than that of fixed-confidence setting and that uniform sampling of both alternatives -though not optimal- is advisable in practice when combined with an appropriate stopping criterion.

References in corpus (1)

• Further Optimal Regret Bounds for Thompson Sampling

Cited by in corpus (5)

• Optimal Best Arm Identification with Fixed Confidence
• What Doubling Tricks Can and Can't Do for Multi-Armed Bandits
• Always Valid Inference: Bringing Sequential Analysis to A/B Testing
• Learning the distribution with largest mean: two bandit frameworks
• Improved Confidence Bounds for the Linear Logistic Model and Applications to Linear Bandits