Accelerating A/B-Tests with Counterfactual Estimation: Reducing Variance through Policy Overlap

Online controlled experiments are the gold standard for hypothesis testing in online platforms. Notwithstanding their ubiquity, they are notoriously expensive to run, and issues of variance hamper statistical power in assessing treatment effects. While standard variance reduction techniques leverage model-based control variates to reduce outcome noise, they remain agnostic to potential structural relationships between competing policies. In this work, we identify a critical inefficiency in the standard A/B-testing protocol: when a treatment and control policy agree on an action, the resulting outcome contributes noise but no signal regarding the treatment effect -- unnecessarily inflating confidence intervals. We propose a novel experimental protocol that exploits this policy overlap to accelerate experimentation. The key insight is to frame the randomised treatment assignment mechanism as a meta-policy, and leverage $Δ$-Off-Policy Estimation methods to obtain unbiased estimates for average treatment effects. We prove analytically that our approach recovers standard A/B-testing practices in the general case, but that its variance scales with the divergence between policies rather than raw outcome variance. Hence, we dominate the standard Difference-in-Means estimator whenever policies have common support, and the improvement is strict whenever the overlap region contributes non-zero residual variance. Empirical results corroborate these theoretical insights -- holding promise for significant impact on the real-world evaluation of recommender systems, information retrieval pipelines, and large language model interfaces.

Balanced Twins: Causal Inference on Time Series with Hidden Confounding

Accurately estimating treatment effects in time series is essential for evaluating interventions in real-world applications, especially when treatment assignment is biased by unobserved factors. In many practical settings, interventions are adopted at different times across individuals, leading to staggered treatment exposure and heterogeneous pre-treatment histories. In such cases, aggregating outcome trajectories across treated units is ill-defined, making individual treatment effect (ITE) estimation a prerequisite for reliable causal inference. We therefore study the problem of estimating the average treatment effect for the treated (ATT) by first recovering individual-level counterfactuals. We introduce a neural framework that learns simultaneously low-dimensional latent representations of individual time series and propensity scores. These estimates are then used to approximate the individual treatment effects through a flexible matching procedure that avoids classical convexity constraints commonly used in synthetic control methods. By operating at the individual level, our approach naturally accommodates staggered interventions and improves counterfactual estimation under latent bias, without relying on explicit temporal modeling assumptions. We illustrate our approach on both real-world energy consumption data and clinical time series, including high-frequency electricity demand-response programs and semi-synthetic data for individuals in intensive care unit (ICU), where hidden confounding, staggered treatment adoption, and non-stationary dynamics are prevalent.