skip to main content
10.1145/3637528.3671560acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageskddConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Temporal Uplift Modeling for Online Marketing

Published: 24 August 2024 Publication History

Abstract

In recent years, uplift modeling, also known as individual treatment effect (ITE) estimation, has seen wide applications in online marketing, such as delivering one-time issuance of coupons or discounts to motivate users' purchases. However, complex yet more realistic scenarios involving multiple interventions over time on users are still rarely explored. The challenges include handling the bias from time-varying confounders, determining optimal treatment timing, and selecting among numerous treatments. In this paper, to tackle the aforementioned challenges, we present a temporal point process-based uplift model (TPPUM) that utilizes users' temporal event sequences to estimate treatment effects via counterfactual analysis and temporal point processes. In this model, marketing actions are considered as treatments, user purchases as outcome events, and how treatments alter the future conditional intensity function of generating outcome events as the uplift. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that our method outperforms existing baselines on both real-world and synthetic datasets. In the online experiment conducted in a discounted bundle recommendation scenario involving an average of 3 to 4 interventions per day and hundreds of treatment candidates, we demonstrate how our model outperforms current state-of-the-art methods in selecting the appropriate treatment and timing of treatment, resulting in a 3.6% increase in application-level revenue.

Supplemental Material

MP4 File - ads0288-2min-promo
Video presentation about the temporal point process-based uplift model

References

[1]
Susan Athey, Guido W Imbens, and Stefan Wager. 2018. Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, Vol. 80, 4 (2018), 597--623.
[2]
Jeroen Berrevoets, Alicia Curth, Ioana Bica, Eoin McKinney, and Mihaela van der Schaar. 2021. Disentangled counterfactual recurrent networks for treatment effect inference over time. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03811 (2021).
[3]
Artem Betlei, Eustache Diemert, and Massih-Reza Amini. 2021. Uplift modeling with generalization guarantees. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 55--65.
[4]
Ioana Bica, Ahmed M Alaa, James Jordon, and Mihaela van der Schaar. 2019. Estimating counterfactual treatment outcomes over time through adversarially balanced representations. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
[5]
Ricky TQ Chen, Brandon Amos, and Maximilian Nickel. 2020. Neural spatio-temporal point processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04583 (2020).
[6]
Floris Devriendt, Jente Van Belle, Tias Guns, and Wouter Verbeke. 2020. Learning to rank for uplift modeling. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, Vol. 34, 10 (2020), 4888--4904.
[7]
Nan Du, Hanjun Dai, Rakshit Trivedi, Utkarsh Upadhyay, Manuel Gomez-Rodriguez, and Le Song. 2016. Recurrent marked temporal point processes: Embedding event history to vector. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 1555--1564.
[8]
Garrett Fitzmaurice, Marie Davidian, Geert Verbeke, and Geert Molenberghs. 2008. Estimation of the causal effects of time-varying exposures. In Longitudinal Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 567--614.
[9]
Yaroslav Ganin, Evgeniya Ustinova, Hana Ajakan, Pascal Germain, Hugo Larochelle, Franccois Laviolette, Mario Marchand, and Victor Lempitsky. 2016. Domain-adversarial training of neural networks. The journal of machine learning research, Vol. 17, 1 (2016), 2096--2030.
[10]
Changran Geng, Harald Paganetti, and Clemens Grassberger. 2017. Prediction of treatment response for combined chemo-and radiation therapy for non-small cell lung cancer patients using a bio-mathematical model. Scientific reports, Vol. 7, 1 (2017), 13542.
[11]
Maciej Jaskowski and Szymon Jaroszewicz. 2012. Uplift modeling for clinical trial data. In ICML Workshop on Clinical Data Analysis, Vol. 46. 79--95.
[12]
Wang-Cheng Kang and Julian McAuley. 2018. Self-attentive sequential recommendation. In 2018 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM). IEEE, 197--206.
[13]
Sören R Künzel, Jasjeet S Sekhon, Peter J Bickel, and Bin Yu. 2019. Metalearners for estimating heterogeneous treatment effects using machine learning. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, Vol. 116, 10 (2019), 4156--4165.
[14]
Bryan Lim. 2018. Forecasting treatment responses over time using recurrent marginal structural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 31 (2018).
[15]
Ying-Chun Lin, Chi-Hsuan Huang, Chu-Cheng Hsieh, Yu-Chen Shu, and Kun-Ta Chuang. 2017. Monetary discount strategies for real-time promotion campaign. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web. 1123--1132.
[16]
Dugang Liu, Xing Tang, Han Gao, Fuyuan Lyu, and Xiuqiang He. 2023. Explicit Feature Interaction-aware Uplift Network for Online Marketing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00315 (2023).
[17]
Christos Louizos, Uri Shalit, Joris M Mooij, David Sontag, Richard Zemel, and Max Welling. 2017. Causal effect inference with deep latent-variable models. Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 30 (2017).
[18]
Hongyuan Mei and Jason M Eisner. 2017. The neural hawkes process: A neurally self-modulating multivariate point process. Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 30 (2017).
[19]
Valentyn Melnychuk, Dennis Frauen, and Stefan Feuerriegel. 2022. Causal transformer for estimating counterfactual outcomes. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 15293--15329.
[20]
Xinkun Nie and Stefan Wager. 2021. Quasi-oracle estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects. Biometrika, Vol. 108, 2 (2021), 299--319.
[21]
Donald B Rubin. 2005. Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., Vol. 100, 469 (2005), 322--331.
[22]
Piotr Rzepakowski and Szymon Jaroszewicz. 2010. Decision trees for uplift modeling. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE, 441--450.
[23]
Uri Shalit, Fredrik D Johansson, and David Sontag. 2017. Estimating individual treatment effect: generalization bounds and algorithms. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 3076--3085.
[24]
Karishma Sharma, Yizhou Zhang, Emilio Ferrara, and Yan Liu. 2021. Identifying coordinated accounts on social media through hidden influence and group behaviours. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 1441--1451.
[25]
Claudia Shi, David Blei, and Victor Veitch. 2019. Adapting neural networks for the estimation of treatment effects. Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 32 (2019).
[26]
Xiaogang Su, Joseph Kang, Juanjuan Fan, Richard A Levine, and Xin Yan. 2012. Facilitating score and causal inference trees for large observational studies. Journal of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 13 (2012), 2955.
[27]
Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 6000--6010.
[28]
Jinsung Yoon, James Jordon, and Mihaela Van Der Schaar. 2018. GANITE: Estimation of individualized treatment effects using generative adversarial nets. In International conference on learning representations.
[29]
Kanghoon Yoon, Youngjun Im, Jingyu Choi, Taehwan Jeong, and Jinkyoo Park. 2023. Learning Multivariate Hawkes Process via Graph Recurrent Neural Network. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 5451--5462.
[30]
Yizhou Zhang, Defu Cao, and Yan Liu. 2022. Counterfactual neural temporal point process for estimating causal influence of misinformation on social media. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 35 (2022), 10643--10655.
[31]
Kui Zhao, Junhao Hua, Ling Yan, Qi Zhang, Huan Xu, and Cheng Yang. 2019. A unified framework for marketing budget allocation. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 1820--1830.
[32]
Kailiang Zhong, Fengtong Xiao, Yan Ren, Yaorong Liang, Wenqing Yao, Xiaofeng Yang, and Ling Cen. 2022. DESCN: Deep Entire Space Cross Networks for Individual Treatment Effect Estimation. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4612--4620.
[33]
Tengfei Zhou, Hui Qian, Zebang Shen, Chao Zhang, Chengwei Wang, Shichen Liu, and Wenwu Ou. 2018. JUMP: a joint predictor for user click and dwell time. In Proceedings of the 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. AAAI Press. 3704--3710.

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
KDD '24: Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
August 2024
6901 pages
ISBN:9798400704901
DOI:10.1145/3637528
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 the author(s) 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: 24 August 2024

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. individual treatment effect
  2. online marketing
  3. uplift modeling

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

KDD '24
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 1,133 of 8,635 submissions, 13%

Upcoming Conference

KDD '25

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • 0
    Total Citations
  • 302
    Total Downloads
  • Downloads (Last 12 months)302
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)28
Reflects downloads up to 17 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

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