A Comparison of Methods for Treatment Assignment with an Application to Playlist Generation

References

• Ascarza E (2018) Retention futility: Targeting high-risk customers might be ineffective. J. Marketing Res. 55(1):80–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens G (2016) Recursive partitioning for heterogeneous causal effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 113(27):7353–7360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens GW (2017)The state of applied econometrics: Causality and policy evaluation. J. Econom. Perspect. 31(2):3–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Imbens GW (2019) Machine learning methods that economists should know about. Annu. Rev. Econ. 11:685–725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Wager S (2021) Policy learning with observational data. Econometrica 89(1):133–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beygelzimer A, Langford J (2009) The offset tree for learning with partial labels. Proc. 15th ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining (ACM, New York), 129–138.Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya D, Dupas P (2012) Inferring welfare maximizing treatment assignment under budget constraints. J. Econometrics 167(1):168–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burges C, Shaked T, Renshaw E, Lazier A, Deeds M, Hamilton N, Hullender G (2005) Learning to rank using gradient descent. Proc. 22nd Internat. Conf. Machine Learning (ACM, New York), 89–96.Google Scholar
• Chakraborty B, Moodie EE (2013) Statistical Methods for Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Statistics for Biology and Health, vol. 2 (Springer, New York).Google Scholar
• Chakraborty B, Murphy SA (2014) Dynamic treatment regimes. Annu. Rev. Statist. Appl. 1:447–464.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cox DR (1958) Planning of Experiments (Wiley, New Jersey).Google Scholar
• Dehejia RH (2005) Program evaluation as a decision problem. J. Econometrics 125(1-2):141–173.Google Scholar
• Dorie V, Hill J, Shalit U, Scott M, Cervone D (2019) Automated vs. do-it-yourself methods for causal inference: Lessons learned from a data analysis competition. Statist. Sci. 34(1):43–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dudík M, Langford J, Li L (2011) Doubly robust policy evaluation and learning. Getoor L, Scheffer T, eds. Proc. 28th Internat. Conf. Machine Learning (Omnipress, Madison, WI), 1097–1104.Google Scholar
• Elmachtoub A, Jason CNL, McNellis R (2020) Decision trees for decision-making under the predict-then-optimize framework. Daumé III H, Singh A, eds. Internat. Conf. Machine Learning (PMLR), 2858–2867.Google Scholar
• Elmachtoub AN, Grigas P (2022) Smart “predict, then optimize.” Management Sci. 68(1):9–26.Link, Google Scholar
• Fernández-Loría C, Provost F (2019) Observational vs experimental data when making automated decisions using machine learning. Preprint, submitted August 29, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3444678.Google Scholar
• Fernández-Loría C, Provost F (2022a) Causal classification: Treatment effect estimation vs. outcome prediction. J. Machine Learning Res. 23(59):1–35.Google Scholar
• Fernández-Loría C, Provost F (2022b) Causal decision making and causal effect estimation are not the same… and why it matters. INFORMS J. Data Sci., ePub ahead of print March 10, https://doi.org/10.1287/ijds.2021.0006.Google Scholar
• Friedman JH (1997) On bias, variance, 0/1–loss, and the curse-of-dimensionality. Data Mining Knowledge Discovery 1(1):55–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hill JL (2011) Bayesian nonparametric modeling for causal inference. J. Comput. Graphical Statist. 20(1):217–240.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirano K, Porter JR (2009) Asymptotics for statistical treatment rules. Econometrica. 77(5):1683–1701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Imai K, Ratkovic M (2013) Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation. Ann. Appl. Statist. 7(1):443–470.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaskowski M, Jaroszewicz S (2012) Uplift modeling for clinical trial data. Elhadad N, Hauskrecht M, eds. ICML Workshop Clinical Data Anal. (International Machine Learning Society, San Diego).Google Scholar
• Kane K, Lo VSY, Zheng J (2014) Mining for the truly responsive customers and prospects using true-lift modeling: Comparison of new and existing methods. J. Marketing Anal. 2(4):218–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kitagawa T, Tetenov A (2018) Who should be treated? Empirical welfare maximization methods for treatment choice. Econometrica 86(2):591–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Künzel SR, Sekhon JS, Bickel PJ, Yu B (2019) Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116(10):4156–4165.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemmens A, Gupta S (2020) Managing churn to maximize profits. Marketing Sci. 39(5):956–973.Link, Google Scholar
• Li L, Chu W, Langford J, Schapire RE (2010) A contextual-bandit approach to personalized news article recommendation. Proc. 19th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (ACM, New York), 661–670.Google Scholar
• Liebman E, Saar-Tsechansky M, Stone P (2019) The right music at the right time: Adaptive personalized playlists based on sequence modeling. MIS Quart. 43(3):765–786.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lo VSY (2002) The true lift model: A novel data mining approach to response modeling in database marketing. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newslett. 4(2):78–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manski CF (2004) Statistical treatment rules for heterogeneous populations. Econometrica 72(4):1221–1246.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFowland E, Gangarapu S, Bapna R, Sun T (2021) A prescriptive analytics framework for optimal policy deployment using heterogeneous treatment effects. MIS Quart. 45(4):1807–1832.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller A, Hosanagar K (2020) Personalized discount targeting with causal machine learning. Karahanna E, Sarker S, Oestreicher-Singer G, eds. Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems ICIS (Association for Information Systems, Atlanta).Google Scholar
• Murphy SA (2003) Optimal dynamic treatment regimes. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B Statist. Methodol. 65(2):331–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nie X, Wager S (2017) Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Preprint, submitted December 13, https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.04912.Google Scholar
• Olaya D, Coussement K, Verbeke W (2020) A survey and benchmarking study of multitreatment uplift modeling. Data Mining Knowledge Discovery 34(2):273–308.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pearl J (2009) Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Provost F, Fawcett T (2013) Data Science for Business: What You Need to Know About Data Mining and Data-Analytic Thinking (O’Reilly Media, Inc., Newton, MA).Google Scholar
• Radcliffe NJ, Surry PD (2011) Real-world uplift modelling with significance-based uplift trees. White Paper TR-2011-1, Stochastic Solutions, Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70(1):41–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Ed. Psych. 66(5):688–701.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rzepakowski P, Jaroszewicz S (2012) Decision trees for uplift modeling with single and multiple treatments. Knowledge Inform. Systems 32(2):303–327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schuler A, Baiocchi M, Tibshirani R, Shah N (2018) A comparison of methods for model selection when estimating individual treatment effects. Preprint, submitted April 14, https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.05146.Google Scholar
• Wager S, Athey S (2018) Estimation and inference of heterogeneous treatment effects using random forests. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 113(523):1228–1242.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2015) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach (Nelson Education, Toronto).Google Scholar
• Yang J, Eckles D, Dhillon P, Aral S (2020) Targeting for long-term outcomes. Preprint, submitted October 29, https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.15835.Google Scholar
• Zadrozny B (2003) Policy mining: Learning decision policies from fixed sets of data. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA.Google Scholar
• Zhang B, Tsiatis AA, Davidian M, Zhang M, Laber E (2012) Estimating optimal treatment regimes from a classification perspective. Stat 1(1):103–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao Y, Zeng D, Rush AJ, Kosorok MR (2012) Estimating individualized treatment rules using outcome weighted learning. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 107(499):1106–1118.Crossref, Google Scholar