What is Simpson's Paradox and how can it bias A/B tests?

WHAT THIS TESTS: This question tests whether you understand that aggregate correlation or treatment effects are not causation. Interviewers want to see that you know a statistically significant lift in an A/B test can be completely misleading when subgroups are pooled inappropriately. The core issue is confounding, not random noise. They are looking for statistical maturity and the habit of slicing data before trusting a top-line number.

A GOOD ANSWER COVERS: First, a crisp definition: Simpson's Paradox occurs when a trend appears in separate groups of data but disappears or reverses when those groups are combined. Second, a concrete A/B testing scenario, such as a new checkout flow where Variant A wins overall but actually loses to Variant B on every device type because one variant received far more traffic from a high-converting segment. Third, an investigation plan: stratify by suspected confounders like device, traffic source, or time of enrollment; compare segment-level rates against the aggregate; check for unequal sample sizes or selection bias; and apply a regression model or propensity weighting to control for the confounder and recover the true causal effect.

COMMON WRONG ANSWERS: A major red flag is attributing the reversal to small sample size or statistical noise without naming a confounding variable. Another is suggesting you simply pick the subgroup results and ignore the aggregate without explaining why the groups differed in size or composition. Saying you would rerun the test longer is also weak unless you explain how you would change the randomization or targeting to balance the confounder. Finally, confusing Simpson's Paradox with the multiple comparisons problem or peeking shows a shallow understanding.

LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS: An interviewer might ask how Simpson's Paradox relates to causal inference and whether stratification alone is enough to fix it. They might probe whether you would ship the feature based on the aggregate win or the subgroup losses, which tests your product judgment and ethical stance on user harm. They could also ask how you would design the experiment upfront to prevent this, such as using stratified randomization or covariate-adaptive randomization to ensure balanced allocation across known confounders.

ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE: Imagine an A/B test of a new payment page. Variant A is shown to 1000 mobile users converting at 10 percent and 2000 desktop users converting at 40 percent. Variant B is shown to 2000 mobile users converting at 12 percent and 1000 desktop users converting at 50 percent. Variant A wins overall with 30 percent conversion while Variant B has roughly 24.7 percent, yet Variant B outperforms Variant A on both mobile and desktop individually. The confounder is device type and the allocation is severely skewed: Variant A got mostly desktop traffic with higher baseline conversion, inflating its aggregate rate. To investigate, you would immediately tabulate conversion by device, observe the skewed allocation, and either control for device in a logistic regression or reweight the segments to estimate the true treatment effect.

Source: Wikipedia: Simpson's paradox