Targeting for Long-Term Outcomes

References

• Ascarza E (2018) Retention futility: Targeting high-risk customers might be ineffective. J. Marketing Res. 55(1):80–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ascarza E, Fader PS, Hardie BGS (2017) Marketing models for the customer-centric firm, chapter 10. Wierenga B, van Der Lans R, eds. Handbook of Marketing Decision Models (Springer, Berlin), 297–329.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ascarza E, Iyengar R, Schleicher M (2016) The perils of proactive churn prevention using plan recommendations: Evidence from a field experiment. J. Marketing Res. 53(1):46–60.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, Wager S (2021) Policy learning with observational data. Econometrica 89(1):133–161.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Chetty R, Imbens GW, Kang H (2019) The surrogate index: Combining short-term proxies to estimate long-term treatment effects more rapidly and precisely. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. Krishnapuram B, Shah M, General Chairs. Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining (ACM, New York), 785–794.Google Scholar
• Chen H, Geng Z, Jia J (2007) Criteria for surrogate end points. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B Statist. Methodology 69(5):919–932.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chen T, He T, Benesty M, Khotilovich V, Tang Y, Cho H, Chen K, Mitchell R, Cano I, Zhou T (2015) XGBoost: Extreme gradient boosting. R package version 0.4-2. 1(4):1–4.Google Scholar
• Chernozhukov V, Escanciano JC, Ichimura H, Newey WK, Robins JM (2022) Locally robust semiparametric estimation. Econometrica 90(4):1501–1535.Google Scholar
• Dehejia RH, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev. Econom. Statist. 84(1):151–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dudík M, Erhan D, Langford J, Li L (2014) Doubly robust policy evaluation and optimization. Statist. Sci. 29(4):485–511.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckles D, Bakshy E (2021) Bias and high-dimensional adjustment in observational studies of peer effects. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 116(534):507–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eckles D, Kaptein M (2014) Thompson sampling with the online bootstrap. Preprint, submitted October 15, https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4009.Google Scholar
• Eckles D, Kaptein M (2019) Bootstrap Thompson sampling and sequential decision problems in the behavioral sciences. SAGE Open 9(2).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fader PS, Hardie BGS (2015) Simple probability models for computing CLV and CE. Kumar V, Shah D, eds. Handbook of Research on Customer Equity in Marketing (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK), 77–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fader PS, Hardie BGS, Sen S (2014) Stochastic models of buyer behavior. Winer RS, Neslin SA, eds. The History of Marketing Science (World Scientific Publishing Co. Pvt. Itd., Singapore), 165–205.Google Scholar
• Farrell MH (2015) Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations. J. Econometrics 189(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A (1992) Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statist. Medicine 11(2):167–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghassami A, Shpitser I, Tchetgen E (2021) Proximal causal inference with hidden mediators: Front-door and related mediation problems. Preprint, submitted November 4, https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.02927.Google Scholar
• Godinho de Matos M, Pedro F, Rodrigo B (2018) Target the ego or target the group: Evidence from a randomized experiment in proactive churn management. Marketing Sci. 37(5):793–811.Link, Google Scholar
• Gordon BR, Zettelmeyer F, Bhargava N, Chapsky D (2019) A comparison of approaches to advertising measurement: Evidence from big field experiments at Facebook. Marketing Sci. 38(2):193–225.Link, Google Scholar
• Gupta S, Hanssens D, Hardie B, Kahn W, Kumar V, Lin N, Ravishanker N, Sriram S (2006) Modeling customer lifetime value. J. Service Res. 9(2):139–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hahn J (1998) On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica 66(2):315–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitsch GJ, Misra S (2018) Heterogeneous treatment effects and optimal targeting policy evaluation. Preprint, submitted February 6, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3111957.Google Scholar
• Horvitz DG, Thompson DJ (1952) A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 47(260):663–685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jiang Z, Ding P, Geng Z (2016) Principal causal effect identification and surrogate end point evaluation by multiple trials. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B Statist. Methodology 78(4):829–848.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Joffe MM, Greene T (2009) Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics 65(2):530–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khan S, Ugander J (2023) Adaptive normalization for IPW estimation. J. Causal Inference 11(1):20220019.Google Scholar
• Lauritzen SL (2004) Discussion on causality. Scandinavian J. Statist. 31(2):189–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lemmens A, Gupta S (2020) Managing churn to maximize profits. Marketing Sci. 39(5):956–973.Link, Google Scholar
• Lu X, Van Roy B (2017) Ensemble sampling. Guyon I, Von Luxburg U, Bengio S, Wallach H, Fergus R, Vishwanathan S, Garnett R, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems (Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc., San Diego), 3258–3266.Google Scholar
• Murphy SA, van der Laan MJ, Robins JM, and Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (2001) Marginal mean models for dynamic regimes. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 96(456):1410–1423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neslin SA, Gupta S, Kamakura W, Lu J, Mason CH (2006) Defection detection: Measuring and understanding the predictive accuracy of customer churn models. J. Marketing Res. 43(2):204–211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Osband I, Blundell C, Pritzel A, Van Roy B (2016) Deep exploration via bootstrapped DQN. Lee DD, von Luxburg U, Garnett R, Sugiyama M, Guyon I, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems (Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc., San Diego), 4026–4034.Google Scholar
• Osband I, Van Roy B, Russo D, Wen Z (2019) Deep exploration via randomized value functions. J. Machine Learn. Res. 20:1–62.Google Scholar
• Owen AB (2019) Monte Carlo theory, methods and examples. Accessed October 2020, https://artowen.su.domains/mc/.Google Scholar
• Prentice RL (2006) Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: Definition and operational criteria. Statist. Medicine 8(4):431–440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robins JM, Rotnitzky A, Zhao LP (1994) Estimation of regression coefficients when some regressors are not always observed. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 89(427):846–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Russac Y, Vernade C, Cappé O (2019) Weighted linear bandits for non-stationary environments. Wallach H, Larochelle H, Beygelzimer A, d′Alché-Buc F, Fox E, Garnett R, eds. Adv. Neural Inform. Processing Systems (Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc., San Diego), 12017–12026.Google Scholar
• Särndal CE, Swensson B, Wretman JH (2003) Model Assisted Survey Sampling (Springer-Verlag, New York).Google Scholar
• Simester D, Timoshenko A, Zoumpoulis SI (2019) Targeting prospective customers: Robustness of machine learning methods to typical data challenges. Management Sci. 66(6):2495–2522.Link, Google Scholar
• Simester D, Timoshenko A, Zoumpoulis SI (2020) Efficiently evaluating targeting policies: Improving on champion vs. challenger experiments. Management Sci. 66(8):3412–3424.Link, Google Scholar
• Sun H, Du S, Wager S (2021) Treatment allocation under uncertain costs. Preprint, submitted March 20, https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.11066.Google Scholar
• Sutton RS, Barto AG (2018) Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• VanderWeele TJ (2013) Surrogate measures and consistent surrogates. Biometrics 69(3):561–565.Crossref, 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
• Weir CJ, Walley RJ (2006) Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints: A literature review. Statist. Medicine 25(2):183–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xu J, Zeger SL (2001) The evaluation of multiple surrogate endpoints. Biometrics 57(1):81–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yoganarasimhan H, Barzegary E, Pani A (2023) Design and evaluation of personalized free trials. Management Sci. 69(6):3220–3240.Google Scholar
• Zhou Z, Athey S, Wager S (2023) Offline multi-action policy learning: Generalization and optimization. Oper. Res. 71(1):148–183.Google Scholar