Caroline Howard

Prashant Shekhar, Caroline Howard · tsinghua

Advertising platforms use randomized lift tests to measure incrementality, but privacy-preserving reporting systems degrade the observed signal through match-rate loss, linkability loss, attribution-window loss, aggregation-threshold suppression, randomized reporting noise, and segment-heterogeneous signal loss. This paper formulates privacy-constrained advertising measurement as a robust causal decision problem under the mentioned signal losses. Given a randomized experiment and an ambiguity set for privacy-induced degradation, the framework projects the observation-compatible fiber of clean/unfiltered experimental worlds onto the incrementality functional and returns certified, rejected, and unresolved decisions. The main result gives a sharp decision frontier. Reports outside the frontier support uniformly valid certification or rejection, whereas reports inside it contain too little information for any method to uniformly distinguish above-threshold incrementality from non-incrementality. Supporting results give finite-sample certification, sample-complexity guarantees, a minimax lower bound showing that signal loss reduces effective information, and a reporting-granularity tradeoff. On 2.0M Criteo Uplift rows and the 64K-row Hillstrom email experiment, clean conversion lift is positive in both datasets, with lifts 0.00112 and 0.00495, respectively. Population certification survives mild degradation in Criteo and severe degradation in Hillstrom, while all considered finite-sample stress settings in both datasets remain unresolved after simultaneous uncertainty and reporting noise are included. Overall, the research contributes a decision-theoretic layer for privacy-aware incrementality measurement whose output is the strongest causal-claim justified by degraded ads signals.

Prashant Shekhar, Caroline Howard

Online experiments in ads, recommendation, and member-experience systems are often planned before the dominant interference mechanism is known. A treatment may propagate through budgets, inventory, producer exposure, graph spillovers, or temporal carryover, making the randomization design itself a statistical decision. We formulate this problem as robust design selection over uncertain exposure mechanisms. Given a finite catalog of six implementable designs, the selector compares each design by worst-case planning risk over an ambiguity set. The risk combines exposure bias, assignment-unit variance, minimum detectable effect, contamination or carryover, operational cost, and estimand mismatch. For theoretical justification, the paper develops a geometry-aware guarantee, stating that design bias is bounded by Wasserstein distance to the launch exposure distribution, and this penalty is minimax tight under Lipschitz exposure response. We also prove finite-catalog approximation and a robust selector theorem with excess-risk control, exact recovery under separation, and certified shortlists when the risk surface is flat. Empirically, the same selector gives different recommendations across samples from public datasets. It selects user-randomization on Criteo ads with dimensionless robust risk 1.295, switchbacks on Open Bandit-bts/men with risk 2.105, and cluster-randomization on KuaiRand with risk 2.240. The Open Bandit case stresses known but uneven logging support, with propensities from 0.00006 to 0.594 and a 5.17% IPS effective-sample share. Overall, the paper contributes an interference-aware experiment design framework based on mechanism-robust design decisions, where the output is either a justified design choice or an uncertainty shortlist.

Prashant Shekhar, Caroline Howard

Logged advertising auctions make offline reserve-price evaluation attractive but risky. Replay tables can identify policies with large apparent yield gains, yet they can also hide weak threshold support, multiple-comparison effects, subgroup harm, and bidder-response uncertainty. Existing replay and off-policy evaluation methods estimate or rank policy values, but they do not directly answer the operational question of whether the available evidence is strong enough to justify validation. This paper develops a support-aware offline decision framework for reserve-policy selection. Rather than outputting a single point-estimate winner, the framework converts logged evidence into a conservative decision object consisting of certified policies, statistically dominated alternatives, and unresolved candidates requiring further validation. The main theoretical result gives a unified finite-catalog guarantee showing that, under simultaneous uncertainty control and conservative support gates, the framework preserves the best gate-passing policy while eliminating only policies with certified regret. Supporting results characterize support-localized replay generalization, establish information-theoretic threshold-resolution limits, and quantify when heterogeneous bidder response can overturn localized replay rankings. Experiments on iPinYou real-time-bidding logs show that the leading reserve rule achieves a 47.66% replay lift in season two, a 40.71% simultaneous lower-bound lift, and a 43.87% frozen out-of-time replay lift in season three. The framework reduces a 19-policy catalog to a two-policy validation shortlist while certifying non-harm across 44 advertiser, exchange, and region segments. The results support the central claim that offline reserve-policy evaluation should produce certified validation decisions rather than point-estimate rankings alone.

Prashant Shekhar, Caroline Howard

Marketplace platforms routinely evaluate pricing and allocation policies using logged observational data, yet strong offline performance does not imply that a policy is safe to deploy. In real-time bidding (RTB) marketplaces, reserve-price and floor-policy changes affect not only revenue but also fill, advertiser value, budget pacing, and competition across auctions, creating feedback and interference. The central problem is therefore not to estimate whether a policy improves an offline metric, but to determine whether the available evidence justifies direct launch or only further validation. In this regard, we propose a support-aware decision-support system (DSS) that distinguishes promising from actionable evidence. The framework integrates replay, support-aware off-policy evaluation (OPE), conservative lower-bound ranking, multi-sided guardrails, out-of-time validation, sensitivity analysis, and interference-aware validation design into a claim-preserving pipeline that outputs a launch-readiness classification rather than a single performance estimate. Applying the framework to iPinYou-style RTB logs, we identify a margin-gated floor policy as the leading candidate, with a 47.7% replay yield lift, a 45.8% conservative lower-tail lift, and stable out-of-time performance. However, the framework does not recommend direct launch. A decision-rule ablation shows that simplified pipelines select the same policy but incorrectly recommend deployment, leaving key causal assumptions unresolved. In contrast, the proposed DSS selects the same policy but changes the action to online validation, reflecting missing evidence on propensities, bidder response, and interference. Overall, the contribution is a reproducible DSS protocol that prevents decision overclaim under partial identification and converts offline evaluation into an auditable, action-oriented recommendation.