在在线A/B测试中使用生成式AI的自动业务决策:与人类决策的比较分析

IF 3.4 3区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Changhak Sunwoo;Hyunjin Kwon;Jong Min Kim;Ho-Hyun Lim;Yongwoo Kim;Dongwook Hwang;Jingoo Kim
{"title":"在在线A/B测试中使用生成式AI的自动业务决策:与人类决策的比较分析","authors":"Changhak Sunwoo;Hyunjin Kwon;Jong Min Kim;Ho-Hyun Lim;Yongwoo Kim;Dongwook Hwang;Jingoo Kim","doi":"10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3588480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online A/B testing is widely used as an experimental methodology for product improvement and business optimization. However, interpreting experimental results often involves subjective judgment and biases from experiment designers, which can undermine the reliability and reproducibility of test outcomes. In particular, experiment designers frequently exhibit inconsistent decision-making when dealing with neutral results—cases where neither statistically significant positive nor negative effects are observed. This study aims to explore the feasibility of automating A/B test decision-making using Generative AI and empirically analyze how well AI decisions align with those of experiment designers and experts. Utilizing 1,407 experimental cases from 48 companies on the Hackle online experimentation platform, the study compares decision-making outcomes between experiment designers and Generative AI, analyzing agreement rates and identifying patterns across companies. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and inter-rater agreement evaluation, were employed to assess differences and reliability. The findings indicate meaningful discrepancies between AI and experiment designers but demonstrate that AI decisions closely align with expert judgments. These results suggest that Generative AI can serve as a complementary tool to enhance the consistency and reliability of A/B test result interpretation.","PeriodicalId":13079,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Access","volume":"13 ","pages":"124530-124542"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=11079579","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automated Business Decision-Making Using Generative AI in Online A/B Testing: Comparative Analysis With Human Decision-Making\",\"authors\":\"Changhak Sunwoo;Hyunjin Kwon;Jong Min Kim;Ho-Hyun Lim;Yongwoo Kim;Dongwook Hwang;Jingoo Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3588480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Online A/B testing is widely used as an experimental methodology for product improvement and business optimization. However, interpreting experimental results often involves subjective judgment and biases from experiment designers, which can undermine the reliability and reproducibility of test outcomes. In particular, experiment designers frequently exhibit inconsistent decision-making when dealing with neutral results—cases where neither statistically significant positive nor negative effects are observed. This study aims to explore the feasibility of automating A/B test decision-making using Generative AI and empirically analyze how well AI decisions align with those of experiment designers and experts. Utilizing 1,407 experimental cases from 48 companies on the Hackle online experimentation platform, the study compares decision-making outcomes between experiment designers and Generative AI, analyzing agreement rates and identifying patterns across companies. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and inter-rater agreement evaluation, were employed to assess differences and reliability. The findings indicate meaningful discrepancies between AI and experiment designers but demonstrate that AI decisions closely align with expert judgments. These results suggest that Generative AI can serve as a complementary tool to enhance the consistency and reliability of A/B test result interpretation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE Access\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"124530-124542\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=11079579\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE Access\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11079579/\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Access","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11079579/","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在线A/B测试被广泛用作产品改进和业务优化的实验方法。然而,解释实验结果往往涉及实验设计者的主观判断和偏差,这可能会破坏测试结果的可靠性和可重复性。特别是,实验设计者在处理中性结果时经常表现出不一致的决策——在统计上既没有显著的积极影响也没有观察到消极影响的情况下。本研究旨在探索使用生成式人工智能自动化A/B测试决策的可行性,并实证分析人工智能决策与实验设计师和专家的决策一致的程度。该研究利用Hackle在线实验平台上48家公司的1407个实验案例,比较了实验设计者和生成式人工智能之间的决策结果,分析了一致性并确定了公司之间的模式。采用统计分析,包括卡方检验和评分者间一致性评价来评估差异和信度。研究结果表明,人工智能和实验设计者之间存在重大差异,但人工智能的决策与专家的判断密切相关。这些结果表明,生成式人工智能可以作为一种补充工具,增强a /B测试结果解释的一致性和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Automated Business Decision-Making Using Generative AI in Online A/B Testing: Comparative Analysis With Human Decision-Making
Online A/B testing is widely used as an experimental methodology for product improvement and business optimization. However, interpreting experimental results often involves subjective judgment and biases from experiment designers, which can undermine the reliability and reproducibility of test outcomes. In particular, experiment designers frequently exhibit inconsistent decision-making when dealing with neutral results—cases where neither statistically significant positive nor negative effects are observed. This study aims to explore the feasibility of automating A/B test decision-making using Generative AI and empirically analyze how well AI decisions align with those of experiment designers and experts. Utilizing 1,407 experimental cases from 48 companies on the Hackle online experimentation platform, the study compares decision-making outcomes between experiment designers and Generative AI, analyzing agreement rates and identifying patterns across companies. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and inter-rater agreement evaluation, were employed to assess differences and reliability. The findings indicate meaningful discrepancies between AI and experiment designers but demonstrate that AI decisions closely align with expert judgments. These results suggest that Generative AI can serve as a complementary tool to enhance the consistency and reliability of A/B test result interpretation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
IEEE Access
IEEE Access COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMSENGIN-ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6673
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: IEEE Access® is a multidisciplinary, open access (OA), applications-oriented, all-electronic archival journal that continuously presents the results of original research or development across all of IEEE''s fields of interest. IEEE Access will publish articles that are of high interest to readers, original, technically correct, and clearly presented. Supported by author publication charges (APC), its hallmarks are a rapid peer review and publication process with open access to all readers. Unlike IEEE''s traditional Transactions or Journals, reviews are "binary", in that reviewers will either Accept or Reject an article in the form it is submitted in order to achieve rapid turnaround. Especially encouraged are submissions on: Multidisciplinary topics, or applications-oriented articles and negative results that do not fit within the scope of IEEE''s traditional journals. Practical articles discussing new experiments or measurement techniques, interesting solutions to engineering. Development of new or improved fabrication or manufacturing techniques. Reviews or survey articles of new or evolving fields oriented to assist others in understanding the new area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信