The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Controlled experiments on the web: survey and practical guide
Open accessAbstract
The web provides an unprecedented opportunity to evaluate ideas quickly using controlled experiments, also called randomized experiments, A/B tests (and their generalizations), split tests, Control/Treatment tests, MultiVariable Tests (MVT) and parallel flights. Controlled experiments embody the best scientific design for establishing a causal relationship between changes and their influence on user-observable behavior. We provide a practical guide to conducting online experiments, where end-users can help guide the development of features. Our experience indicates that significant learning and return-on-investment (ROI) are seen when development teams listen to their customers, not to the Highest Paid Person’s Opinion (HiPPO). We provide several examples of controlled experiments with surprising results. We review the important ingredients of running controlled experiments, and discuss their limitations (both technical and organizational). We focus on several areas that are critical to experimentation, including statistical power, sample size, and techniques for variance reduction. We describe common architectures for experimentation systems and analyze their advantages and disadvantages. We evaluate randomization and hashing techniques, which we show are not as simple in practice as is often assumed. Controlled experiments typically generate large amounts of data, which can be analyzed using data mining techniques to gain deeper understanding of the factors influencing the outcome of interest, leading to new hypotheses and creating a virtuous cycle of improvements. Organizations that embrace controlled experiments with clear evaluation criteria can evolve their systems with automated optimizations and real-time analyses. Based on our extensive practical experience with multiple systems and organizations, we share key lessons that will help practitioners in running trustworthy controlled experiments.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A few useful things to know about machine learning
Domingos, P. (2012) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2347736.2347755 · Cited by 3,326
Dhar, V. (2013) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2500499 · Cited by 856
Chuklin, A., Markov, I., & de Rijke, M. (2015) · Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02294-4 · Cited by 398
Trustworthy Online Controlled Experiments: A Practical Guide to A/B Testing
Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108653985 · Cited by 297
Self-citationDevelopment and Deployment at Facebook
Feitelson, D. G., Frachtenberg, E., & Beck, K. L. (2013) · IEEE Internet Computing · doi:10.1109/mic.2013.25 · Cited by 243
Metadata
- Authors
- Kohavi, R., Longbotham, R., Sommerfield, D., & Henne, R. M.
- Venue
- Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery
- Published
- 2008-07-30
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 140-181
- ISSN
- 1384-5810 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-756X
- OpenAlex
- W2110228583
- Cited by
- 690
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Controlled experiments on the web: survey and practical guide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10618-008-0114-1
- The paper
- Kohavi, R., Longbotham, R., Sommerfield, D., & Henne, R. M. (2009). Controlled experiments on the web: survey and practical guide. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-008-0114-1
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.