Blog

Donnu A/B Blog

Complete, honest guides on CRO, A/B testing and experimentation: statistics, sample size, test design and what to do with the results. No fluff. (page 6 of 24)

Statistics

Synthetic Control: The Control Group That Never Existed

With only one treated market, the synthetic control method builds a control by weighting several markets. How to fit it, validate it, and where it breaks.

Statistics

Cohort Maturity in A/B Tests: Reading D7 and D30

A user who joined yesterday never had seven days to stay. How cohort maturity distorts D7 and D30 retention in A/B tests, and how to close the cohort.

Statistics

Conversion Lag in A/B Tests: The Data Still In Flight

Conversion lag makes an early read reward whoever converts fastest, not whoever converts most. How to measure your arrival curve and when to read the test.

Statistics

Time to Event Metrics in A/B Testing

When the metric is a duration and not a rate, censoring breaks the average. How to read time to event in A/B tests with Kaplan-Meier, RMST and log-rank.

Statistics

Differential Attrition in A/B Tests: Bounding the Effect

Differential attrition makes the conditional mean lie. How Lee bounds fence in the real effect when the treatment changes who is left in the analysis.

Statistics

Intention to Treat in A/B Testing: Analyze by Assignment

Intention to treat measures the effect on who was assigned, not on who used the feature. Why per-protocol overstated the result 2.4x, and how to fix it.

Statistics

Surrogate Metrics in A/B Testing: Validating a Proxy

Surrogate metrics trade the long outcome for early signals. How to validate a proxy, why correlation is not enough, and the test that exposes the failure.

Statistics

Cluster Randomization in A/B Testing: Design Effect

Cluster randomization in A/B testing: assigning accounts and analysing users pushes false positives from 5 to 14.5 percent. The design effect fixes it.

Statistics

Meta-analysis of A/B Tests: Read the Whole Program

Meta-analysis of A/B tests: pool 12 experiments into one estimate, measure heterogeneity with I squared, correct the 1.34x winner exaggeration.