skip to main content
10.1145/2684822.2685294acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswsdmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Robust Tree-based Causal Inference for Complex Ad Effectiveness Analysis

Published: 02 February 2015 Publication History

Abstract

As the online advertising industry has evolved into an age of diverse ad formats and delivery channels, users are exposed to complex ad treatments involving various ad characteristics. The diversity and generality of ad treatments call for accurate and causal measurement of ad effectiveness, i.e., how the ad treatment causes the changes in outcomes without the confounding effect by user characteristics. Various causal inference approaches have been proposed to measure the causal effect of ad treatments. However, most existing causal inference methods focus on univariate and binary treatment and are not well suited for complex ad treatments. Moreover, to be practical in the data-rich online environment, the measurement needs to be highly general and efficient, which is not addressed in conventional causal inference approaches. In this paper we propose a novel causal inference framework for assessing the impact of general advertising treatments. Our new framework enables analysis on uni- or multi-dimensional ad treatments, where each dimension (ad treatment factor) could be discrete or continuous. We prove that our approach is able to provide an unbiased estimation of the ad effectiveness by controlling the confounding effect of user characteristics. The framework is computationally efficient by employing a tree structure that specifies the relationship between user characteristics and the corresponding ad treatment. This tree-based framework is robust to model misspecification and highly flexible with minimal manual tuning. To demonstrate the efficacy of our approach, we apply it to two advertising campaigns. In the first campaign we evaluate the impact of different ad frequencies, and in the second one we consider the synthetic ad effectiveness across TV and online platforms. Our framework successfully provides the causal impact of ads with different frequencies in both campaigns. Moreover, it shows that the ad frequency usually has a treatment effect cap, which is usually over-estimated by naive estimation.

References

[1]
M. Abraham. The off-line impact of online ads. Harvard Business Review, 86(4): 28, 2008.
[2]
P. Austin. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46:399--424, 2011.
[3]
J. Barajas, J. Kwon, R. Akella, A. Flores, M. Holtan, and V. Andrei. Marketing campaign evaluation in targeted display advertising. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Data Mining for Online Advertising and Internet Economy, page 5. ACM, 2012.
[4]
A. Basu, D. Polsky, and W. G. Manning. Use of propensity scores in non-linear response models: the case for health care expenditures. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008.
[5]
L. Bottou, J. Peters, J. Qui\ nonero-Candela, D. X. Charles, D. M. Chickering, E. Portugaly, D. Ray, P. Simard, and E. Snelson. Counterfactual reasoning and learning systems: the example of computational advertising. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 14(1):3207--3260, 2013.
[6]
L. Breiman. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24(2):123--140, 1996.
[7]
L. Breiman, J. Friedman, C. J. Stone, and R. A. Olshen. Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1984.
[8]
P. Bühlmann and B. Yu. Analyzing bagging. The Annals of Statistics, 30(4):927--961, 2002.
[9]
M. Cepeda, R. Boston, J. Farrar, and B. Strom. Comparison of logistic regression versus propensity score when the number of events is low and there are multiple confounders. American Journal of Epidemiology, 158:280--287, 2003.
[10]
D. Chan, R. Ge, O. Gershony, T. Hesterberg, and D. Lambert. Evaluating online ad campaigns in a pipeline: causal models at scale. In Proceedings of SIGKDD, pages 7--16. ACM, 2010.
[11]
Z. Chen, K. Zhang, L. Chan, and B. Schölkopf. Causal discovery via reproducing kernel hilbert space embeddings. Neural computation, pages 1--34, 2014.
[12]
D. R. Cox. Planning of experiments. Wiley, 1958.
[13]
B. Dalessandro, C. Perlich, O. Stitelman, and F. Provost. Causally motivated attribution for online advertising. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Data Mining for Online Advertising and Internet Economy, page 7. ACM, 2012.
[14]
A. Dasgupta, K. Punera, J. M. Rao, X. Wang, J. Rao, and X.-J. Wang. Impact of spam exposure on user engagement. In USENIX Security, 2012.
[15]
G. Dupret and M. Lalmas. Absence time and user engagement: evaluating ranking functions. In Proceedings of WSDM. ACM, 2013.
[16]
J. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. glmnet: Lasso and elastic-net regularized generalized linear models. R package version 1.4., 2009.
[17]
G. Harrison and J. A. List. Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 27:1013--1059, 2004.
[18]
T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. Friedman. The Elements of Statistical Learning. Springer, 2009.
[19]
K. Hullsiek and T. Louis. Propensity score modeling strategies for the causal analysis of observational data. Biostatistics, 2:179--193, 2002.
[20]
K. Imai. Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? the importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review, 99(2):283--300, 2005.
[21]
K. Imai and D. A. Van Dyk. Causal inference with general treatment regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(467), 2004.
[22]
D. Janzing, J. Mooij, K. Zhang, J. Lemeire, J. Zscheischler, P. Daniu\vsis, B. Steudel, and B. Schölkopf. Information-geometric approach to inferring causal directions. Artificial Intelligence, 182:1--31, 2012.
[23]
M. M. Joffe and P. R. Rosenbaum. Invited commentary: propensity scores. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150(4):327--333, 1999.
[24]
G. A. Johnson, R. A. Lewis, and D. H. Reiley. Add more ads' experimentally measuring incremental purchases due to increased frequency of online display advertising. Working Paper, 2013.
[25]
R. Kohav and R. Longbotham. Unexpected results in online controlled experiments. SIGKDD Explorations, 12(2), 2010.
[26]
M. Lechner. Earnings and employment effects of continuous gff-the-job training in east germany after unification. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 17(1):74--90, 1999.
[27]
R. A. Lewis, J. M. Rao, and D. H. Reiley. Here, there, and everywhere: correlated online behaviors can lead to overestimates of the effects of advertising. In Proceedings of WWW, pages 157--166. ACM, 2011.
[28]
B. Lu, E. Zanutto, R. Hornik, and P. R. Rosenbaum. Matching with doses in an observational study of a media campaign against drug abuse. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96(456):1245--1253, 2001.
[29]
S. Perkins, W. Tu, M. Underhill, X. Zhou, and M. Murray. The use of propensity scores in pharmacoepidemiologic research. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 9:93--101, 2000.
[30]
P. R. Rosenbaum and D. B. Rubin. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1):41--55, 1983.
[31]
P. R. Rosenbaum and D. B. Rubin. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1):41--55, 1983.
[32]
P. R. Rosenbaum and D. B. Rubin. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79(387):516--524, 1984.
[33]
G. Rosenkrans. The creativeness & effectiveness of online interactive rich media advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 9(2):18--31, 2009.
[34]
D. Rubin. Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127:757--763, 1997.
[35]
O. Stitelman, B. Dalessandro, C. Perlich, and F. Provost. Estimating the effect of online display advertising on browser conversion. Data Mining and Audience Intelligence for Advertising, 8, 2011.
[36]
X. Su, J. Kang, J. Fan, R. A. Levine, and X. Yan. Facilitating score and causal inference trees for large observational studies. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(1):2955--2994, 2012.
[37]
L. Tang, R. Rosales, A. Singh, and D. Agarwal. Automatic ad format selection via contextual bandits. In Proceedings of CIKM, pages 1587--1594. ACM, 2013.
[38]
P. Wang, Y. Liu, M. Meytlis, H.-Y. Tsao, J. Yang, and P. Huang. An efficient framework for online advertising effectiveness measurement and comparison. Proceedings of WSDM, 2014.
[39]
P. Wang, M. Traskin, and D. S. Small. Robust inferences from a before-and-after study with multiple unaffected control groups. Journal of Causal Inference, pages 1--26, 2013.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Estimating Counterfactual Treatment Outcomes Over Time in Complex Multiagent ScenariosIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems10.1109/TNNLS.2024.336116636:2(2103-2117)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • (2024)Meta-learning for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation with closed-form solversMachine Learning10.1007/s10994-024-06546-7113:9(6093-6114)Online publication date: 29-May-2024
  • (2024)Tracking treatment effect heterogeneity in evolving environmentsMachine Learning10.1007/s10994-023-06421-x113:6(3653-3673)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
WSDM '15: Proceedings of the Eighth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining
February 2015
482 pages
ISBN:9781450333177
DOI:10.1145/2684822
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 02 February 2015

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. advertising
  2. causal inference
  3. online strategy measurement

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

WSDM 2015

Acceptance Rates

WSDM '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 39 of 238 submissions, 16%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 498 of 2,863 submissions, 17%

Upcoming Conference

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)36
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Estimating Counterfactual Treatment Outcomes Over Time in Complex Multiagent ScenariosIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems10.1109/TNNLS.2024.336116636:2(2103-2117)Online publication date: Feb-2025
  • (2024)Meta-learning for heterogeneous treatment effect estimation with closed-form solversMachine Learning10.1007/s10994-024-06546-7113:9(6093-6114)Online publication date: 29-May-2024
  • (2024)Tracking treatment effect heterogeneity in evolving environmentsMachine Learning10.1007/s10994-023-06421-x113:6(3653-3673)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2024
  • (2023)A Machine Learning Approach to Compare Causal Inference Modelling Strategies in the Digital Advertising Industry2023 2nd International Conference on Ambient Intelligence in Health Care (ICAIHC)10.1109/ICAIHC59020.2023.10431473(1-7)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2023
  • (2023)Estimating Treatment Effects Under Heterogeneous InterferenceMachine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: Research Track10.1007/978-3-031-43412-9_34(576-592)Online publication date: 17-Sep-2023
  • (2023)Causal Effect Estimation: Basic MethodologiesMachine Learning for Causal Inference10.1007/978-3-031-35051-1_3(23-52)Online publication date: 9-Aug-2023
  • (2022)Learning Causal Effects From Observational Data in Healthcare: A Review and SummaryFrontiers in Medicine10.3389/fmed.2022.8648829Online publication date: 7-Jul-2022
  • (2021)CauseBoxProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management10.1145/3459637.3481974(4789-4793)Online publication date: 26-Oct-2021
  • (2021)A Survey on Causal InferenceACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data10.1145/344494415:5(1-46)Online publication date: 10-May-2021
  • (2021)Incrementality Testing in Programmatic Advertising: Enhanced Precision with Double-Blind DesignsProceedings of the Web Conference 202110.1145/3442381.3450106(2818-2827)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2021
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media