Imagine if person B’s blood pressure reading depends on whether person A receives the blood pressure medicine in a randomized controlled trial.
This will be violating Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA)
SUTVA states that the treatment received by an individual should not influence the outcome we see for another individual during the experiment.
I know the initial example sounded absurd, so let me try again.
Consider LinkedIn A/B testing a new ‘dislike’ reaction for its users, and the gods of fate chose you to be part of the initial treatment group that received this update.
Excited after seeing this new update, you use this dislike reaction on my post and send a screenshot to a few of your connections to do the same, who are coincidentally in the control group that did not receive the update.
Your connections log in and engage with my posts to use this dislike reaction, but later get disappointed as this new update is not yet available to them.
The offices of LinkedIn are tracking the post engagement as an outcome metric for this experiment, and they will be confused as to why even the control group’s engagement has increased after the update (safe to say that the p-value is not going to be their friend)
Call this effect what you want — interference, spillover, leakage, etc., but the truth remains that it makes the results of an experiment unreliable.
But companies like LinkedIn, where users are organized in massive social graphs, have smart ways of detecting these interference effects and accounting for them in their A/B tests.
You can read one of such techniques used by LinkedIn from a 2019 post on their engineering blog.
Comments
Post a Comment