Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Jonthan Litz
dblp:194/3944
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper |
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 1, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Performance modeling and evaluation
online controlled experiments |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Trustworthy Analysis of Online A/B Tests: Pitfalls, challenges and solutions · WSDM 2017 |
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | Trustworthy Analysis of Online A/B Tests: Pitfalls, challenges and solutionsabstractA/B tests (or randomized controlled experiments) play an integral role in the research and development cycles of technology companies. As in classic randomized experiments (e.g., clinical trials), the underlying statistical analysis of A/B tests is based on assuming the randomization unit is independent and identically distributed (\iid). However, the randomization mechanisms utilized in online A/B tests can be quite complex and may render this assumption invalid. Analysis that unjustifiably relies on this assumption can yield untrustworthy results and lead to incorrect conclusions. Motivated by challenging problems arising from actual online experiments, we propose a new method of variance estimation that relies only on practically plausible assumptions, is directly applicable to a wide of range of randomization mechanisms, and can be implemented easily. We examine its performance and illustrate its advantages over two commonly used methods of variance estimation on both simulated and empirical datasets. Our results lead to a deeper understanding of the conditions under which the randomization unit can be treated as \iid In particular, we show that for purposes of variance estimation, the randomization unit can be approximated as \iid when the individual treatment effect variation is small; however, this approximation can lead to variance under-estimation when the individual treatment effect variation is large. Alex Deng, Jiannan Lu, Jonthan Litz |
WSDM | 3 |