Bayesian Inference Procedures for A/B Testing: An Overview
TL;DR
Simulations against group-sequential and always-valid frequentist baselines show that flat-prior posterior stopping exactly reproduces naive peeking, that a well-calibrated empirical Bayes prior achieves the lowest estimation error, and that expected-loss stopping minimizes regret only when shipping a null-effect variant is nearly free.
Abstract
Bayesian inference for A/B testing is a family of prior and stopping-rule configurations with fundamentally different statistical properties, but it is often discussed as a single method, and no systematic overview exists. This paper organizes common configurations into a three-tier hierarchy: 1) posterior coherence with no error control, 2) false positive rates bounded under continuous monitoring via Bayes factor stopping, and 3) false discovery rate control and calibrated shrinkage via empirical Bayes. Many commercial platforms operate at the lowest tier by default. We show that Bayes factor stopping is near-optimal for a broad class of cost functions, including most proposed in the A/B testing literature; because the same rule also controls the false positive rate, the choice between a decision-theoretic and a frequentist formulation is largely one of parameterization. Furthermore, the empirical Bayes prior is the only path to the third tier, but winner-selected corpora, pooled programs, and heterogeneous metrics can each prevent calibration regardless of corpus size. Simulations against group-sequential and always-valid frequentist baselines show that flat-prior posterior stopping exactly reproduces naive peeking, that a well-calibrated empirical Bayes prior achieves the lowest estimation error, and that expected-loss stopping minimizes regret only when shipping a null-effect variant is nearly free. Error rates, estimation accuracy, and regret are all different risks, and the appropriate method follows from the risks an experimentation program needs to control, not the other way around.