ML Interview Q Series: A/B Testing & Regression to the Mean: Why Initial Uplift Might Decrease
Browse all the Probability Interview Questions here.
Suppose we have introduced a new user interface to a randomly chosen group of users to improve conversion rates, and the new interface shows a 5% lift. Once this updated UI is rolled out to everyone, do we expect the final conversion metric to increase by around 5%, or will it differ?
Comprehensive Explanation
When an A/B test (or any controlled experiment) indicates that a new variant outperforms the existing version by a certain percentage, the immediate expectation might be that applying the new variant to the entire user population will yield a similar uplift. However, in practice, the observed boost often changes—commonly, it becomes smaller but there can be scenarios where it might remain the same or, on rare occasions, be larger. The key considerations include random variation, sampling bias, regression to the mean, or experimental design details that may not exactly replicate once scaled to 100% of traffic. The question explicitly removes the idea of a “novelty effect,” so short-term excitement is not a factor here.
Random Variation and Regression to the Mean
Even with a perfectly randomized subset, the measured 5% lift is subject to sampling variability. A smaller subset can overestimate (or underestimate) the true effect. When the variant is deployed to the full population, those random fluctuations often average out, frequently leading to a smaller net boost. This phenomenon is referred to as regression to the mean, meaning that a measured extreme outcome (like a 5% lift) often gets pulled closer to its long-term average when measured on a much larger set of users.
Statistical Significance and Expected Value
To determine if the new interface truly has a ~5% advantage, one usually calculates a confidence interval around the difference. A simplified version of the difference in proportions for a conversion rate experiment can be expressed as:
Where:
p_newis the measured conversion rate of the new UI (from the test).p_oldis the measured conversion rate of the old UI (from the test).Diffis the observed improvement in the test.
A crucial part of this process is to estimate the uncertainty in that difference, which can be approached via the standard error for difference in proportions:
Where:
n_newis the number of observations (users) seeing the new UI in the test.n_oldis the number of observations (users) seeing the old UI in the test.hat{p}_{new}andhat{p}_{old}are the observed conversion rates for the new and old UIs, respectively.SEis the standard error of the difference, indicating the spread of possible outcomes due to sampling variation.
When moving from the test sample to the full population, the exact difference you see in practice is likely to lie within some confidence interval around the measured Diff, but due to random highs or lows in the test sample, the actual shift in the overall population (once deployed fully) tends to be somewhat smaller than the observed test result.
Practical Observations
Even with careful A/B testing, several factors might reduce the observed increase when moving to full deployment:
The smaller test group may have certain user segments that respond more strongly to the change.
Edge cases or less-engaged segments of your overall user population might mitigate the improvement.
Although novelty effect is ruled out by the question, other psychological or contextual factors—such as changes in user flow or user education—could still cause differences between the test phase and the full rollout.
In most well-conducted, randomly assigned experiments, you will not see an extreme deviation from the test result. Yet it is quite common that the final observed lift ends up being somewhat lower than the 5% measured in the limited-scale test.
Why the Metric Often Ends Up Being Lower
Random sampling can overestimate the uplift in an experiment. If the test was relatively short or if external factors (e.g., promotions, seasonality) influenced user behavior in ways that were not sustained over time, the 5% advantage seen during the experiment might not translate in full once the product is under normal conditions for a broader audience. Even with solid experimental design, the effect often drops slightly once all uncontrollable variations are averaged out.
Could It Ever Go Higher?
There are scenarios where the observed lift might become larger upon full rollout:
If the test group was relatively risk-averse or unrepresentative of the broader user population.
If the new UI interacts synergistically with other product features that the test group did not fully experience.
However, these scenarios are less common in standard A/B tests where randomization is done correctly and the test is run long enough to account for typical usage patterns.
Potential Follow-Up Questions
How do we decide the right confidence to proceed with a full rollout?
You typically use hypothesis testing. You might form a null hypothesis “the new UI does not improve conversion” and an alternative hypothesis “the new UI increases conversion by some margin.” You then calculate a p-value and confidence interval on the difference. In production settings, you also want to consider statistical power (whether you collected enough data to detect the expected effect size reliably). If the confidence interval of the difference is strictly above 0 (or some baseline improvement threshold), you have good evidence the UI is beneficial. However, be prepared for a smaller real-world effect.
How do we mitigate regression to the mean?
You can:
Run the experiment for a sufficient duration to capture typical user behavior (avoid short-term anomalies).
Ensure that test and control groups are truly representative of the overall user base.
Regularly re-validate results on new cohorts to ensure you are not overfitting to a particular timeframe or cohort.
What if our metric drops instead of seeing a 5% increase after rollout?
Possible reasons might include:
The test sample was too small or not representative enough of the broader population.
External changes, such as competitor promotions or user behavior changes, occurred around the time of rollout.
Interactions between the new UI and other product features that were not fully captured in the test.
The best response is to investigate by slicing the data across different user segments, double-checking the experiment design (randomization, sample size, instrumentation), and possibly running a second test or a holdout experiment to confirm or refute the initial findings.
How to interpret results in a real-world scenario with multiple concurrent tests?
In many large-scale organizations, multiple experiments run simultaneously on the same user base. Interactions between experiments can muddy the waters. It is important to have a robust experiment framework that can handle test collisions or at least measure them. If collisions are not accounted for, each individual experiment’s measured effect may differ from the realized effect once everything is combined.
Implementation Details and Best Practices
In practical Python-based A/B testing frameworks, you might rely on a standard library (like statsmodels) to calculate confidence intervals for the difference in proportions:
import numpy as np
import statsmodels.api as sm
# Example counts
conversions_new = 500
total_new = 10000
conversions_old = 460
total_old = 10000
p_new = conversions_new / total_new
p_old = conversions_old / total_old
# Estimate difference
diff = p_new - p_old
# Standard error
var_new = p_new * (1 - p_new) / total_new
var_old = p_old * (1 - p_old) / total_old
se = np.sqrt(var_new + var_old)
# Confidence interval (using normal approximation)
z_score = 1.96 # for ~95% CI
ci_lower = diff - z_score * se
ci_upper = diff + z_score * se
print("Estimated Difference:", diff)
print("95% CI:", (ci_lower, ci_upper))
This kind of calculation helps you estimate how confident you can be about the difference. Even if the CI indicates an improvement around 5%, bear in mind that scaling to the entire population might produce a slightly different effect, commonly smaller, for reasons discussed above.
Below are additional follow-up questions
Could the effect differ if we tested multiple variations of the new UI at the same time?
When running a single A/B test with one new UI versus one control, it is relatively straightforward to interpret the 5% improvement. However, if multiple UI variations are being tested simultaneously (e.g., a multi-armed bandit approach or multiple parallel experiments), each variant might interact with the others in subtle ways. One variant could cannibalize another’s success if they share overlapping user flows or if the same users are exposed to multiple changes. Additionally, the best-performing variant in a multi-variation test might show a “winner’s curse,” meaning you select the best outcome partly because of random luck rather than a genuinely superior experience. Upon rolling that variant out fully, you might see a smaller uplift because some of that advantage was due to chance.
Pitfalls:
Ensuring that randomization does not lead to significant overlap of users among variations.
Correctly analyzing multiple comparisons to avoid inflating the chance of a false positive.
Distinguishing between real improvements and noise from the selection of a top performer among multiple variants.
Edge Cases:
If different user segments respond very differently to each variant, the multiple-variation test could amplify or mask certain user behaviors.
Overlapping metrics or interactions can lead to contradictory conclusions unless carefully isolated.
What if the new UI affects different segments of users differently, and the test sample was too small to capture that?
Even though your random subset might show an overall 5% boost, subsets of users (e.g., new vs. returning, high spenders vs. casual browsers, mobile vs. desktop) might exhibit bigger gains or even losses. A sample that appears random globally might still have some imbalances at the segment level purely by chance or because of unknown user behaviors. If these segments are large in the broader population, the final overall uplift might deviate from your test results.
Pitfalls:
Ignoring segment-level differences can cause overconfidence in the 5% improvement.
A single average number might obscure significant negative outcomes in certain segments.
Edge Cases:
If a large portion of your revenue comes from a specialized group, and that group was underrepresented in the test, the full rollout metric might be far from the experiment’s average.
Sparse segment data may lead to high variance in segment estimates, making it difficult to confidently interpret segment effects.
How do we ensure the test duration is sufficient to account for potential cyclical or seasonal effects?
Conversion rates can vary by day of the week, time of day, and season. A short test might coincide with an atypical period—such as a holiday promotion—yielding an inflated or deflated 5% improvement. If rolled out broadly, the average across normal periods might be lower. Conversely, if the test ran during a slow season, the real improvement could turn out higher.
Pitfalls:
Running an experiment only on weekdays or only for a brief window risks over- or underestimating the true impact.
Seasonal or cyclical factors might confound results if not accounted for in the analysis (e.g., controlled for or measured over enough cycles).
Edge Cases:
Some products may have strong weekend vs. weekday patterns. If the test overlapped with holiday weekends (or missed them entirely), that might skew results.
If a major marketing campaign happened to launch during the test window, the apparent improvement might be partly due to external factors.
Could long-term user adaptation affect the true impact of the new UI once fully deployed?
Over extended periods, user behavior and experience with the interface might evolve. Even though the question rules out short-term novelty effects, there can still be adaptations: users might discover shortcuts, learn new features, or face friction if the UI changes fundamental flows. As the user base settles into the new interface, conversion rates could stabilize to a level different from the initial measured lift.
Pitfalls:
Overlooking how returning users adapt might cause the realized long-term conversion rate to differ from the short-term test outcome.
Hidden usability issues that only become clear over months might reduce engagement or conversions.
Edge Cases:
If the new UI significantly changes a user journey, some might initially show improved metrics but eventually find certain friction points once they perform tasks that are rarely tested in short experiments.
“Power users” might shape the community’s perceptions and influence new or casual users differently from the experimental cohort.
Are there possible trade-offs with other key metrics once the new UI is rolled out?
A 5% improvement in one metric (e.g., conversion rate) does not always imply an overall positive impact. The new UI might negatively impact other essential metrics such as average session duration, long-term user retention, or user satisfaction. The test might focus on conversion metrics while ignoring, for instance, increased bounce rates or decreased subscription renewals.
Pitfalls:
Focusing too narrowly on a single key performance indicator can lead to blind spots.
Interdependencies between metrics might not surface until the UI is exposed to real-world usage patterns beyond the experiment’s scope.
Edge Cases:
If the new UI pushes users to convert more quickly at the expense of post-purchase satisfaction, you might see an increase in product returns or refunds in the long term.
If the UI is too aggressive, you could see short-term revenue upticks but experience user churn or brand damage.
How do we deal with missing or inaccurate data in the test, especially if only partial user actions were tracked?
Experiments rely on accurate data collection. If some portion of user activity is lost or not logged correctly (e.g., due to mobile tracking failures, ad blockers, or instrumentation bugs), the analysis might over- or underestimate the true effect. The 5% lift could partially reflect inconsistencies in measurement rather than a real behavior change.
Pitfalls:
Uneven data loss between control and treatment groups can artificially inflate or deflate the measured difference.
Threshold-based instrumentation (e.g., only logging a user after X events) might distort the baseline metrics.
Edge Cases:
If the new UI triggers new analytics events that the old UI did not, you might overcount actions in the new interface group, inflating conversions.
If an instrumentation bug only affects older browsers, and your control group has proportionally more older browser users, that could bias the results.
Does the nature of user acquisition during the test window influence the measured 5%?
If you acquire new users from different sources during the experiment—such as a marketing campaign that draws high-intent traffic—the new UI might appear to perform better than it would under normal circumstances. Once the new UI is applied to the entire population (including regular incoming traffic sources), the metrics might revert to a smaller uplift.
Pitfalls:
Failing to segment based on acquisition channels could conflate the effect of the new UI with the effect of high-intent or high-quality traffic.
Rapid shifts in marketing channels might mean the user base in the experiment is not representative of typical site traffic.
Edge Cases:
If there is a sudden shift to acquiring international users who behave differently from local users, your sample could be skewed toward or away from certain usage patterns.
If the marketing campaign ends right after the experiment, the 5% lift might drop when the influx of new, more engaged users stops.
How do we handle skewed or heavy-tailed user behavior that could distort an average conversion lift?
Certain users might have an outsized impact—either extremely high or extremely low usage or spending—which could cause average conversion metrics to fluctuate. If just a handful of power users happened to be in the treatment group and engaged heavily during the test, that might inflate the perceived lift. Conversely, the presence of a small number of “heavy negative” outliers (users who do not convert at all or who might churn) in the treatment group could mask a real improvement.
Pitfalls:
Averages can be highly misleading if a small subset has disproportionately large or small values.
Traditional statistical tests for difference in means (or proportions) can be sensitive to skew unless you use robust methods.
Edge Cases:
In B2B products or high-price consumer goods, a few large buyers can drastically alter conversion metrics if randomization places them disproportionately in one group.
Some verticals see a big difference between new users and highly loyal repeat users, creating heavy-tailed distributions in purchase frequency or basket size.