Automation of Product Decision-Making Based on A/B Testing

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

24

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

TYPE

Original Research

PAGE NO.

24-32

DOI

10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue07-04

OPEN ACCESS

SUBMITED

25 June 2025

ACCEPTED

30 June 2025

PUBLISHED

05 July 2025

VOLUME

Vol.07 Issue 07 2025

CITATION

Alexander Blinov. (2025). Automation of Product Decision-Making Based
on A/B Testing. The American Journal of Engineering and Technology,
7(07), 24

–

32. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue07-04

COPYRIGHT

© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.

Automation of Product
Decision-Making Based on
A/B Testing

Alexander Blinov

Chief Product Officer at Zendrop West Palm Beach,
FL, USA

Abstract:

This article covers the issue of automating

product decisions from A/B tests, trying to knit together
what have pretty much been disparate and sometimes
even ad hoc stages of experimentation into a single,
reproducible, scalable pipeline that includes hypothesis
planning, traffic control, streaming analytics, statistical
evaluation, and safe rollout. The growth of this inquiry is
motivated by the rapid increase in numbers of digital
experiments and correspondingly strong demand for
A/B testing tools--and the tremendous weakness of
traditional manual processes: more than 90% of
spreadsheets have errors and one typo in Excel can cost
billions undermining the product teams' confidence in
the experimental results. The novelty of the work lies in
a comprehensive analysis of modern experiment factory
architectures that integrate feature flags, Apache Kafka

–

based streaming analytics, frequentist and Bayesian
evaluation methods, multi-armed bandit algorithms,
reinforcement learning, and elements of causal ML. A
six-layer pipeline concept was proposed in which each
stage (from the hypothesis catalog to automatic rollback
and result archiving) is implemented by automated
means without analyst involvement. Results show that
automated A/B processes shrink the experiment cycle
from weeks to hours, allow for parallel launch of
hundreds of tests, reduce error risk, and speed delivery
of winning variants to production. Sequential analysis
keeps the false-positive rate under control below 5%
along with false discovery rate control; Bayesian modes
provide for proper decisions in small samples; and multi-
armed bandits plus reinforcement learning virtually
eliminate traffic loss during simultaneous exploration
and exploitation. The automated system increases the
frequency of releases, further improves conversions,
and helps improve data-driven culture within

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

25

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

organizations. The paper will be helpful to product
managers, data analysts, DevOps engineers, and CTOs
who are responsible for building and scaling an
experimentation platform and establishing a seamless
cycle of product decision-making.

Keywords:

A/B testing, experiment automation,

streaming analytics, feature flags, sequential analysis,
Bayesian methods, multi-armed bandits, reinforcement
learning, data-driven.

INTRODUCTION

A/B testing is a controlled experiment in which traffic is
randomly split between control and experimental
versions of a feature or interface, and the difference in
target metrics is interpreted as the causal effect of the
change. For digital products, this methodology has
become the primary mechanism for hypothesis
validation: market leaders such as Google and Microsoft
conduct over 10,000 such experiments annually,
integrating continuous testing into their development
pipelines [1]. Studies indicate that companies
systematically employing the A/B approach achieve, on
average, up to a 25% increase in conversion, thereby
accelerating revenue growth without a proportional rise
in costs [2]. It is unsurprising that the global market for
A/B testing tools is estimated at USD 850.2 million and
is growing at 14% per year, reflecting the demand for
data-driven solutions [3].

However, the traditional manual experiment cycle relies
on spreadsheets, one-off scripts, and uncoordinated
metric calculation methods. Such an approach poorly
scales the number of hypotheses that grow, so do delays
between ideation and conclusion, and the risk of human
error. Audits of financial and product reports reveal
inaccuracies in more than 90% of spreadsheets [4], and
a historical example from JPMorgan demonstrated that
a single Excel typo can cost USD 6 billion [5]. A trust
factor also emerges: if the product team questions data
correctness, decisions are postponed or made by feel,
negati

ng the experiment’s value.

Automation aims to eliminate these barriers by
converting experiments into a streaming, reproducible
procedure, wherein traffic allocation, statistical-power
checks, and test termination are executed by a service
without

analyst

intervention.

Practical

cases

demonstrate the scale effect: after adopting automation
tools, one e-commerce company reduced the full test

cycle from three weeks to 14 hours, shifting from dozens
to hundreds of parallel checks [6]. Shortened decision-
making time, reduced error likelihood, and increased
release frequency directly translate into revenue growth
and competitive advantage, explaining the rapid
expansion of automated A/B testing platforms in the
market.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

This study is based on a systematic review of 30 sources,
including industry reports, academic publications, and
practical case studies. Market size and dynamics for A/B
testing were assessed using data from the 9cv9 Career
Blog [2], Stanford University [1], and VWO [3]. Research
by NextProcess [4], P. Barnhurst [5], and Zobel [9]
analyzed the reliability of traditional calculations.

The theoretical foundation encompasses a comparison
of frequentist and Bayesian methods for evaluating A/B
outcomes: Optimizely Stats Engine describes statistical-
significance control and false discovery rate
management [18, 20], and the Bayesian mode in Statsig
has demonstrated reliable conclusions on small samples
[17, 21]. The analysis of streaming analytics
architectures is grounded in use cases of Kafka at
LinkedIn and Confluent [15, 16], while feature-flag
practices are examined through LaunchDarkly reports
[11, 14].

Empirical data were collected from case studies at
Provar [6], Netflix [22], Uber [23], Airbnb [24], and
Booking.com [28]. Additionally, safe rollout and rollback
practices [19], LaunchDarkly guidelines [29, 30], and

McKinsey’s recommendations for formalizing a data

-

driven culture [12] were incorporated.

Methodologically, a mixed scheme was applied,
combining:

1.

A literature review of market and technical
trends;

2.

Comparative analysis of frequentist vs. Bayesian
algorithms and multi-armed bandit strategies;

3.

Case studies of implementations and their
outcomes at Provar [6], Netflix [22], Uber [23],
Airbnb [24], and Booking.com [28];

4.

Architectural analysis of streaming analytics
systems and feature flags;

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

26

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

5.

Synthesis of safe rollout practices and error-
control measures.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first controlled experiments originated as early as
the 1920s; however, the shift to the online environment
did not occur until the late 1990s, when Amazon,
Google, and other digital pioneers began splitting traffic
between interface variants and tracking metrics in real
time [7]. Concurrently, the manual era offers a
cautionary tale: according to a recent study, 94% of
business spreadsheets contain errors [8], and a single

incorrect formula in JPMorgan’s Value

-at-Risk model

resulted in a loss of approximately USD 6 billion

—

examples that underscore the limitations of manual
calculations and drive the pursuit of more robust data-
analysis practices [9].

The technological foundation for this transition has been
stream analytics: distributed event buses such as
Apache Kafka enable the capture of user actions with
millisecond latency, thereby allowing metrics to be
recalculated and tests to be terminated precisely when
sufficient statistical power is reached. It is this capability
that LinkedIn, Uber, and Netflix leverage to build real-
time solutions atop Kafka [10]. At the next level, feature-
flag systems emerge to decouple code releases from
feature activation: according to a LaunchDarkly report,
60% of teams began adopting flags within the past year,
and 81% have already standardized the practice at least
across one or several teams, dramatically increasing
release speed and safety [11]. In combination, stream
analytics and feature flags form an experimental factory
in which a single automated pipeline unites ideas, code,
and statistics.

Such a factory is effective only where a data-driven
decision-making culture is entrenched. McKinsey
research

demonstrates

that

organizations

systematically investing in a data-driven approach
improve customer-experience metrics more rapidly and
free employees to focus on creative tasks, as routine
decisions become automated through analytical
services. Recognizing experimentation as the primary
source of truth enforces the discipline of hypothesis
formulation, metric transparency, and the readiness to
roll back unsuccessful changes without political friction,
scaling product evolution to an industrial level [12].

The modern experimental factory comprises a service
chain that transforms the journey from hypothesis to a
validated decision into a fully automated conveyor. The

platform’s logic is structured ar

ound six interconnected

layers, each handing off data and control to the next
without manual team intervention. The process begins
with planning: every growth-related assumption is
recorded in a catalog that stores the hypothesis
statement,

target

metrics,

preliminary

power

calculation, and decision status. Experience shows that
a unified repository significantly enhances knowledge
reuse: in the Eppo Knowledge Base, for example, all
completed experiments are indexed for subsequent
meta-analysis, facilitating the discovery of analogous
ideas and reducing duplicated efforts [13]. Such a
catalog is often integrated with Jira or a product-
management system, so the transition from idea to
launch is enacted as a card-status change rather than by
file transfers between departments.

Next comes the traffic-splitting layer. The feature-flag
mechanism separates code deployment from feature
activation and enables independent services to make
deterministic decisions about exposing a variant to a
specific user. The approac

h’s popularity is confirmed by

the LaunchDarkly survey: 60% of IT leaders consider
flags a high priority, as shown in Figure 1, and 79% of
companies plan to increase their implementation
budget over the coming year [14].

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

27

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

Fig. 1. How do leaders at your company view feature management as an investment? [14]

To ensure instantaneous feedback, user-action events
are ingested into a streaming bus

—

Kafka has become

the de facto standard in this role. At LinkedIn, such a

pipeline processes over 1.4 trillion messages daily on
1,400 brokers [15], and its operational algorithm is
illustrated in Figure 2.

Fig. 2. Apache Kafka Event Streaming and Data Integration Architecture [15]

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

28

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

A Confluent report illustrates the scale of the trend: 79%
of the 4,110 IT leaders surveyed consider streaming
platforms critical for business agility, and 86% rank them
among the top investment priorities for 2024 [16]. At the
st

ream’s output, data is aggregated in an analytical

warehouse such as ClickHouse, Snowflake, or BigQuery,
where incremental data marts are maintained for each
metric.

The next layer ― the statistical engine ― provides basic

procedures including the two-sample t-

test and χ²

-test

for binary and numerical metrics, but by default allows
switching to Bayesian inference, which returns the
probability that one variant outperforms another and
naturally supports sequential analysis. Study [17]
reports that the Bayesian mode enables running tests
with samples in the thousands, rather than millions of
users, without loss of power, which is particularly
important for startups with limited traffic. For loss-
optimization tasks, multi-armed bandits are layered
atop the Baye

sian estimate ― they are most appropriate

where the delay between action and target metric is
minimal. Error-rate control is implemented according to
the Optimizely Stats Engine. Until a winner is declared,
the system enforces minimum thresholds for visits and
conversions,

automatically

calculating

statistical

significance and thus reducing the risk of false-positive
conclusions [18].

Once the power condition is met, the decision layer
engages. Auto-stop terminates the experiment, records
the outcome, and forwards it to the auto-roll-out
component. The winning variant is deployed according
to a predefined rollout curve, with the capability for
immediate rollback if metrics degrade. Optimizely
describes this scheme as the standard rollout and
rollback, permitting flag toggling without recompiling

code and without affecting other tests [19]. The same
service generates the events required for incident
monitoring. If a degradation beyond the confidence
bounds is detected during ramp-up, the system reverts
the feature to its original state and opens an alert ticket.

The cycle concludes with the knowledge base and
reporting. The engine automatically generates an
experiment card summarizing the effect size, p-value, or
posterior distributions, screenshots of changes, and
segment analysis. A link to this card is attached to the

original hypothesis, closing the loop hypothesis →
decision → archive. Upon revisiting the same idea, the

product team sees the factual history and can decide
whether to rerun the test, apply segment-based
personalization, or fully archive the hypothesis. Thus,
each iteration enriches collective memory and reduces
intuition-based

decisions,

transforming

experimentation into a reproducible engineering
process.

The experimental factory algorithmic core addresses

two orthogonal tasks ― reliably measuring effect and

minimizing the time between observation and action. At
the lowest level remain classical frequentist tests: the
two-sample t-

test for numerical metrics and the χ²

-test

for binary outcomes. Their strength lies in simplicity and
reproducibility, but within event-stream traffic, they
easily break down: under continuous peeking, the false-
positive rate rises from the target 5% to 57%, while even
infrequent checks, once per 1,000 visits, maintain the
risk at 20% [20]. An example of the Optimizely interface
is shown in Figure 3. Therefore, modern engines wrap
the t-

test with specialized procedures ― sequential

analysis and False Discovery Rate control ― to

guarantee an error rate below the specified threshold,
regardless of when the analyst inspects the dashboard.

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

29

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

Fig. 3. Interface of Optimizely app [20]

The second layer introduces a Bayesian interpretation:
rather than testing a null hypothesis, the system
immediately estimates the posterior probability that the
variant outperforms the control and the expected loss in
the event of an error. Practice has shown that this is
particularly useful under low traffic conditions or when
multiple metrics are involved: in Statsig, for example,
the Bayesian mode permits experiments to be stopped
after thousands, rather than millions of observations,
while maintaining the risk level at a predetermined
threshold [21]. Such acceleration is critical for features
whose value rapidly depreciates and for niche segments
where assembling a large sample is impractical.

When the objective extends beyond merely measuring
the effect to dynamically reallocating traffic, multi-
armed bandits and related reinforcement-learning (RL)
approaches come into play. Netflix employs contextual
bandits to select movie thumbnails and trailers for each
user within minutes, reducing the time to identify a
winner compared to traditional A/B testing [22].
Algorithms such as Thompson Sampling or Upper
Confidence Bound (UCB) initially allocate variants
uniformly, then exponentially bias the stream toward
the highest-performing option, conserving traffic while
concurrently learning. In the streaming architecture
described in the previous section, the bandit policy is
updated on the fly, and the feature flag adjusts exposure
percentages without any code release.

Large-scale ecosystems augment this with an RL
component, which optimizes the policy over multi-
meter event streams. Uber, for instance, migrated effect

estimation into a client library and achieved a 100-fold
reduction in p99 latency (from 10 ms to 100 µs),
enabling parameter adaptation on the order of
microseconds [23]. Such speed paves the way for
always-on experimentation, in which the system
autonomously balances exploitation and exploration.

Finally, atop these layers resides Causal Machine
Learning (Causal ML), which addresses whether version
B outperforms version A, but also for whom and why?.
In practice, this enables immediate post-test audience
segmentation: only those clusters with a positive
expected effect receive the winning variant, while
others continue to see the control or an alternative

feature. Thus, the sequence classical → Bayesian →
bandit/RL → causal progressively red

uces uncertainty,

accelerates decision-making, and shifts the success
metric from averaged conversion to individualized user
value.

Robust implementation of the experimental factory
begins with the standardization of metric definitions. As
long as different teams debate the definition of an active
user, no algorithm can resolve logical ambiguities.
Airbnb addressed this issue by developing the Minerva
platform, which today encompasses over 12,000
certified metrics and 4,000 dimensions

—

and it is this

unified vocabulary that enables metrics to be
transferred instantly from dashboards into A/B reports
without rewriting formulas [24]. When planning each
test, the catalog immediately records the minimum
detectable effect (MDE). For a baseline conversion rate
of 1

5% and a required lift verification of ≥ 10% at 95%

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

30

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

confidence, the system will need approximately 8,000
sessions per variant; a smaller MDE results in slower
experiments and more expensive opportunity costs.
Such a calculation provides a transparent cost threshold
for each idea before its launch and organizes the
hypothesis queue according to ROI-to-wait-time ratios
[25].

Subsequently, the auto-stop is engaged. Streaming
platforms update metrics every minute, and without
adjustment, continuous peeking inflates the false-
positive rate from 5% to 30% after one week of
observations.

The

sequential

mSPRT

engine

implemented in Statsig maintains an FPR < 5% even with
daily peeks; across 560 live experiments, it enabled 58%
of tests to be stopped half as early as their planned
horizon, while keeping the error probability at 0.4%
versus > 20% for a naïve z-test with peaks. In practice,
this translates into a precise algorithm: the system
evaluates power every N visits, automatically terminates
the test upon reaching the boundary, and publishes the
decision without analyst intervention [26].

Hypotheses are versioned in a repository akin to Eppo to
prevent the idea pipeline from self-blocking. Each entry
has a unique ID, a link to the code branch, and
automatically inherits the results of previous iterations.
Such a ledger forms the basis for a collision detector:
when attempting to launch a new test, the engine
verifies that no active experiments target the same
cohort and metric [27]. The scale at Booking.com
illustrates the necessity of this mechanism: the company
maintains over 1,000 parallel A/B tests in active
memory, and without centralized intersection checks,
even an experimental decision risks becoming non-
replicable [28].

The final layer is the safe rollout. A feature deemed
successful is deployed incrementally, with the kill switch
remaining active for as long as the feature itself. Report
[29] demonstrates that gradual rollout with immediate
rollback capability reduces incidents and accelerates
mean time to resolution (MTTR), and [30] records that
76% of elite teams employ this approach. The principle
is simple: the flag allows reverting to the control variant
in one click until stability is confirmed via monitoring; if
a rollback happens, the hypothesis automatically gets a
new minor version in the catalog, closing the loop idea

→ test → conclusion → safe deployment.

The product decision process is automated with A/B

testing, making it possible for the product and marketing
strategies to be developed efficiently. Systems that put
A/B tests as part of their workflows make decisions
grounded on better data, cut down on time for testing
of hypotheses, and enhance the total experience of
users. Such technologies lessen errors in subjective
decisions and open new doors for even more detailed
analysis regarding audience needs. In the years to come,
further advancements in analytics tools and machine
learning should enable much higher degrees of
automation and even more personalization, whereby
the decision-making process becomes exceedingly
adaptable and dynamic.

CONCLUSION

Automated A/B testing helps companies automate the
product decision-making since decisions will be made
more accurately and faster. It has been proven that
switching from the old manual system to an automated
one will eradicate major problems plaguing the key
issues: human errors, lag delays, and inadequate
scalability. Automation tools accelerate the process of
testing hypotheses and drastically reduce the time
needed to obtain statistically significant results. This, in
turn, increases release frequency and reduces costs,
which eventually impact revenue growth and reinforce
competitive positioning.

Data from automated A/B tests is highly reliable and
objective. Automation kills subjectivity in decision-
making; it improves analytical processes and makes
them more transparent. It also helps in even deeper and
more accurate analysis of user needs, which is critical for
later personalization of products and services. Using
Bayesian methods, multi-armed bandits, and machine-
learning tricks on streaming data opens new doors for
improving experimental work and its performance when
dealing with low

—

to medium amounts of traffic.

Automated A/B-testing systems set up an experimental
factory that turns the making and checking of new
features into a steady, shared pipeline, cutting down the
time between idea and result. Because of better ways of
dealing with numbers, this setup helps firms change
products more quickly to suit changing times and reduce
dangers linked to wrong answers. Ultimately, these
systems become key parts of wider data-based decision-

making models that help businesses thrive in today’s

digital landscape.

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

31

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

Hence, investing in automated A/B-testing tools is a key
step toward creating a more capable, effective, and
scalable product-making setup. Looking ahead,
continued advances in analytics and machine learning
are expected to render these systems even more
powerful and personalized, unveiling new opportunities
for enhancing customer experience and optimizing
business processes.

REFERENCES

1.

K. Gilbert, “A/B Testing Gets an Upgrade for the
Digital Age,”

Stanford University

, Jun. 12, 2024.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/ab-testing-
gets-upgrade-digital-age

(accessed Apr. 22, 2025).

2.

“Top 64 Latest A/B Testing Statistics, Data, and
Trends,”

9cv9 Career Blog

, Feb. 26, 2025.

https://blog.9cv9.com/top-64-latest-a-b-testing-
statistics-data-and-trends/

(accessed Apr. 23, 2025).

3.

P. Guha, “30 Key A/B Testing Statistics: A
Comprehensive Guide,”

VWO

, Oct. 25, 2024.

https://vwo.com/blog/ab-testing-statistics/

(accessed Apr. 24, 2025).

4.

“Why 94% of Financial Spreadsheets Contain
Errors,”

NextProcess

,

Apr.

04,

2025.

https://www.nextprocess.com/uncategorized/why-
94-of-financial-spreadsheets-contain-errors-and-
what-it-costs-you/

(accessed Apr. 25, 2025).

5.

P. Barnhurst, “How an Excel error cost JP Morgan $6
billion,”

LinkedIn

,

Jul.

19,

2024.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/thefpandaguy_ho
w-an-excel-error-cost-jp-morgan-6-billion-activity-
7220200222088470528-fd8u

(accessed Apr. 26,

2025).

6.

“How a Tech Innovator Reduced Test Cycle Time,”

Provar

, Apr. 10, 2025.

https://provar.com/case-

study/how-this-technology-company-reduced-test-
cycle-time/

(accessed Apr. 26, 2025).

7.

R. Kohavi and R. Longbotham, “Online Controlled
Experiments and A/B Testing,”

Encyclopedia of

Machine Learning and Data Mining

, pp. 1

–

8, Jan.

2016, doi:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-

7502-7_891-1

.

8.

“Study finds 94% of business spreadsheets have
critical errors,”

Higher Education Press

, Aug. 13,

2024.

https://phys.org/news/2024-08-business-

spreadsheets-critical-errors.html

(accessed Apr. 26,

2025).

9.

B. Zobel, “The $6 Billion Excel Error,”

Prosper Spark

,

Oct. 2024.

https://www.prosperspark.com/the-6-

billion-excel-error/

(accessed Apr. 27, 2025).

10.

“Kafka use cases: Real

-

world applications,”

Statsig

,

Aug.

13,

2024.

https://www.statsig.com/perspectives/kafka-use-
cases-applications

(accessed Apr. 28, 2025).

11.

K. Smit

h, “Introducing the 2022 State of Feature

Management,”

Launch

Darkly

,

2022.

https://launchdarkly.com/blog/state-of-feature-
management-2022/

(accessed Apr. 28, 2025).

12.

“The data

-

driven enterprise of 2025,” McKinsey,

2022. Accessed: Apr. 30, 2025. [Online]. Available:

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/bu
siness%20functions/mckinsey%20analytics/our%20
insights/the%20data%20driven%20enterprise%20o
f%202025/the-data-driven-enterprise-of-2025-
final.pdf

13.

“Knowledge

Base,”

Geteppo

,

2025.

https://docs.geteppo.com/experiment-
analysis/reporting/knowledge-base/

(accessed May

01, 2025).

14.

“The state of feature management,”

Launch Darkly

,

2022.

https://launchdarkly.com/state-of-feature-

management/

(accessed May 02, 2025).

15.

J. Koshy, “Kafka Ecosystem at LinkedIn,”

LinkedIn

.

https://www.linkedin.com/blog/engineering/open-
source/kafka-ecosystem-at-linkedin

(accessed May

03, 2025).

16.

A.

Sellers, “Key Takeaways from Confluent’s 2024

Data Streaming Report,”

Confluent

, Jun. 05, 2024.

https://www.confluent.io/blog/2024-data-
streaming-report/

(accessed May 04, 2025).

17.

T. Chan, “You don’t need large sample sizes to run
A/B

tests,”

Statsig.com

,

Dec.

24,

2024.

https://www.statsig.com/blog/you-dont-need-
large-sample-sizes-ab-tests

(accessed May 05,

2025).

18.

“Statistical significance,”

Optimizely

, Feb. 05, 2025.

https://support.optimizely.com/hc/en-
us/articles/4410284003341-Statistical-significance

(accessed May 08, 2025).

19.

“Rollout and rollback features,”

Optimizely

.

The American Journal of Engineering and Technology

32

https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet

https://docs.developers.optimizely.com/full-stack-
experimentation/v2.0/docs/rollout-and-rollback-
features

(accessed May 09, 2025).

20.

L. Pekelis

, “The story behind our Stats Engine,”

Optimizely

, Jan. 20, 2015.

https://www.optimizely.com/insights/blog/statistic
s-for-the-internet-age-the-story-behind-
optimizelys-new-stats-engine/

(accessed May 10,

2025).

21.

“A beginner’s guide to Bayesian experimentation,”

Statsig

, Sep. 16, 2024.

https://www.statsig.com/perspectives/beginner-

guide-bayesian-experimentation

(accessed May 10,

2025).

22.

F. Siddiqi, “ML Platform Meetup: Infra for

Contextual Bandi

ts and Reinforcement Learning,”

Medium

, Oct. 18, 2019.

https://netflixtechblog.com/ml-platform-meetup-

infra-for-contextual-bandits-and-reinforcement-
learning-4a90305948ef

(accessed May 11, 2025).

23.

A. Jetli, “Making Uber’s Experiment Evaluation
Engine 100x Faster,”

Uber Blog

, Oct. 03, 2024.

https://www.uber.com/en-GB/blog/making-ubers-
experiment-evaluation-engine-100x-faster/

(accessed May 12, 2025).

24.

R. Chang, “How Airbnb Achieved Metric Consistency
at Scale,”

The Airbnb Tech Blog

, Aug. 05, 2021.

https://medium.com/airbnb-engineering/how-
airbnb-achieved-metric-consistency-at-scale-
f23cc53dea70

(accessed May 13, 2025).

25.

“Use minimum detectable effect when designing an

ex

periment,”

Optimizely

, 2024.

https://support.optimizely.com/hc/en-

us/articles/4410288881293-Use-minimum-
detectable-effect-when-designing-an-experiment

(accessed May 14, 2025).

26.

M. Stewart, “Sequential Testing on Statsig,”

Statsig

.

https://www.statsig.com/blog/sequential-testing-
on-statsig

(accessed May 15, 2025).

27.

“Creating

Experiment

Analyses,”

Geteppo

.

https://docs.geteppo.com/experiment-
analysis/configuration/

(accessed May 17, 2025).

28.

N. Donovan, “The role of experimentation a

t

Booking.com,”

Booking

, Sep. 02, 2019.

https://partner.booking.com/en-us/click-

magazine/industry-perspectives/role-
experimentation-bookingcom

(accessed May 16,

2025).

29.

“7 Reasons Percentage Rollouts Reduce Deployment
Risk,”

Launch Darkly

, Nov. 15, 2022.

https://launchdarkly.com/blog/how-percentage-

rollouts-minimize-deployment-risks/

(accessed May

19, 2025).

30.

M. Watson, “The Ultimate Guide to Feature Flags:

Implementation

Strategies

for

Enterprise

Applications,”

Full

Scale

,

Jan.

27,

2025.

https://fullscale.io/blog/feature-flags-
implementation-guide/

(accessed May 19, 2025).