Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2512.24521

Power Analysis is Essential: High-Powered Tests Suggest Minimal to No Effect of Rounded Shapes on Click-Through Rates

Ron Kohavi·Jakub Linowski·Lukas Vermeer·Fabrice Boisseranc·Joachim Furuseth·Andrew Gelman·Guido Imbens·Ravikiran Rajagopal
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Underpowered studies (below 50% power) suffer from the winner's curse: A statistically significant positive estimate must exaggerate the true treatment effect to meet the significance threshold. A study by Dipayan Biswas, Annika Abell, and Roger Chacko published in the Journal of Consumer Research (2023) reported that in an A/B test, simply rounding the corners of square buttons increased the online click-through rate by 55% (p-value 0.037)$\unicode{x2014}$a striking finding with potentially wide-ranging implications for a digital industry that is seeking to enhance consumer engagement. Drawing on our experience with tens of thousands of A/B tests, many involving similar user interface modifications, we found this dramatic claim implausibly large. To evaluate the claim and provide a more accurate estimate of the treatment effect, we conducted three high-powered A/B tests, each involving over two thousand times more users than the original study. All three experiments yielded effect size estimates that were approximately two orders of magnitude smaller than initially reported, with 95% confidence intervals that include zero (i.e., not statistically significant at the 0.05 level). Two additional independent replications by Evidoo found similarly small effects. These findings underscore the critical importance of power analysis and experimental design in increasing trust and reproducibility of results.

Explore related subjects

stat.MEcs.HCstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Ron Kohavi, Jakub Linowski, Lukas Vermeer, Fabrice Boisseranc, Joachim Furuseth, Andrew Gelman, Guido Imbens, Ravikiran Rajagopal. 2025-12-30. Power Analysis is Essential: High-Powered Tests Suggest Minimal to No Effect of Rounded Shapes on Click-Through Rates. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.24521

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗