Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Online Controlled Experiment/Evidence
Method evidence record

Online Controlled Experiment

Online controlled experiments, commonly called A/B tests, randomly split live web or app traffic between a control and one or more treatment variants to measure the causal effect of a change on user behavior. Ron Kohavi, Diane Tang, and Ya Xu — who built and ran experimentation platforms at Microsoft, Google, and LinkedIn — set out the modern theory and best practice in their 2020 Cambridge book, and Kohavi's earlier survey with colleagues established the practical foundations of running trustworthy web experiments at scale. The discipline centers on a clearly defined Overall Evaluation Criterion (OEC) that captures long-term value, rigorous randomization, adequate statistical power, and a battery of trustworthiness checks such as the Sample Ratio Mismatch test. Because users are randomized, the difference in metrics between variants is an unbiased estimate of the change's causal impact — the gold standard for marketing and product decisions that attribution and observational analysis can only approximate. The output is a confident ship/no-ship decision: did this headline, layout, price, or feature actually move the metrics that matter, by how much, and with what certainty?

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Online Controlled Experiment (A/B Testing for Marketing)
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / marketing-science
  • Kohavi, R., Tang, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). Trustworthy Online Controlled Experiments: A Practical Guide to A/B Testing. Cambridge University Press. · ISBN 9781108724265
  • Kohavi, R., Longbotham, R., Sommerfield, D., & Henne, R. M. (2009). Controlled experiments on the web: survey and practical guide. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 18(1), 140-181. · DOI 10.1007/s10618-008-0114-1
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Same method familyCustomer Journey Analysismachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainMulti-Touch Media Attributionmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainUplift Modelingmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account