Search

Making ideal decisions as a product leader in a web-facing company is extremely difficult. In addition to navigating the ambiguity of customer satisfaction and achieving business goals, one must also pave a path forward for ones' products and services to remain relevant, desirable, and profitable. Data and experimentation to test product hypotheses are key to informing product decisions. Online controlled experiments by A/B testing may provide the best data to support such decisions with high confidence, but can be time-consuming and expensive, especially when one wants to understand impact to key business metrics such as retention or long-term value. Offline experimentation allows one to rapidly iterate and test, but often cannot provide the same level of confidence, and cannot easily shine a light on impact on business metrics. We introduce a novel, lightweight, and flexible approach to investigating hypotheses, called scenario analysis, that aims to support product leaders' decisions using data about users and estimates of business metrics. Its strengths are that it can provide guidance on trade-offs that are incurred by growing or shifting consumption, estimate trends in long-term outcomes like retention and other important business metrics, and can generate hypotheses about relationships between metrics at scale.

Comparing document semantics is one of the toughest tasks in both Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval. To date, on one hand, the tools for this task are still rare. On the other hand, most relevant methods are devised from the statistic or the vector space model perspectives but nearly none from a topological perspective. In this paper, we hope to make a different sound. A novel algorithm based on topological persistence for comparing semantics similarity between two documents is proposed. Our experiments are conducted on a document dataset with human judges' results. A collection of state-of-the-art methods are selected for comparison. The experimental results show that our algorithm can produce highly human-consistent results, and also beats most state-of-the-art methods though ties with NLTK., Comment: 9 pages, 3 tables, 9th International Conference on Natural Language Processing (NLP 2020)

This study presents a systematic comparison of methods for individual treatment assignment, a general problem that arises in many applications and has received significant attention from economists, computer scientists, and social scientists. We group the various methods proposed in the literature into three general classes of algorithms (or metalearners): learning models to predict outcomes (the O-learner), learning models to predict causal effects (the E-learner), and learning models to predict optimal treatment assignments (the A-learner). We compare the metalearners in terms of (1) their level of generality and (2) the objective function they use to learn models from data; we then discuss the implications that these characteristics have for modeling and decision making. Notably, we demonstrate analytically and empirically that optimizing for the prediction of outcomes or causal effects is not the same as optimizing for treatment assignments, suggesting that in general the A-learner should lead to better treatment assignments than the other metalearners. We demonstrate the practical implications of our findings in the context of choosing, for each user, the best algorithm for playlist generation in order to optimize engagement. This is the first comparison of the three different metalearners on a real-world application at scale (based on more than half a billion individual treatment assignments). In addition to supporting our analytical findings, the results show how large A/B tests can provide substantial value for learning treatment assignment policies, rather than simply choosing the variant that performs best on average.

It remains unknown whether personalized recommendations increase or decrease the diversity of content people consume. We present results from a randomized field experiment on Spotify testing the effect of personalized recommendations on consumption diversity. In the experiment, both control and treatment users were given podcast recommendations, with the sole aim of increasing podcast consumption. Treatment users' recommendations were personalized based on their music listening history, whereas control users were recommended popular podcasts among users in their demographic group. We find that, on average, the treatment increased podcast streams by 28.90%. However, the treatment also decreased the average individual-level diversity of podcast streams by 11.51%, and increased the aggregate diversity of podcast streams by 5.96%, indicating that personalized recommendations have the potential to create patterns of consumption that are homogenous within and diverse across users, a pattern reflecting Balkanization. Our results provide evidence of an "engagement-diversity trade-off" when recommendations are optimized solely to drive consumption: while personalized recommendations increase user engagement, they also affect the diversity of consumed content. This shift in consumption diversity can affect user retention and lifetime value, and impact the optimal strategy for content producers. We also observe evidence that our treatment affected streams from sections of Spotify's app not directly affected by the experiment, suggesting that exposure to personalized recommendations can affect the content that users consume organically. We believe these findings highlight the need for academics and practitioners to continue investing in personalization methods that explicitly take into account the diversity of content recommended.