skip to main content
10.1145/3640457.3688147acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesrecsysConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

End-to-End Cost-Effective Incentive Recommendation under Budget Constraint with Uplift Modeling

Published: 08 October 2024 Publication History

Abstract

In modern online platforms, incentives (e.g., discounts, bonus) are essential factors that enhance user engagement and increase platform revenue. Over recent years, uplift modeling has been introduced as a strategic approach to assign incentives to individual customers. Especially in many real-world applications, online platforms can only incentivize customers with specific budget constraints. This problem can be reformulated as the multi-choice knapsack problem (MCKP). The objective of this optimization is to select the optimal incentive for each customer to maximize the return on investment (ROI). Recent works in this field frequently tackle the budget allocation problem using a two-stage approach. However, this solution is confronted with the following challenges: (1) The causal inference methods often ignore the domain knowledge in online marketing, where the expected response curve of a customer should be monotonic and smooth as the incentive increases. (2) There is an optimality gap between the two stages, resulting in inferior sub-optimal allocation performance due to the loss of the incentive recommendation information for the uplift prediction under the limited budget constraint. To address these challenges, we propose a novel End-to-End Cost-Effective Incentive Recommendation (E3IR) model under the budget constraint. Specifically, our methods consist of two modules, i.e., the uplift prediction module and the differentiable allocation module. In the uplift prediction module, we construct prediction heads to capture the incremental improvement between adjacent treatments with the marketing domain constraints (i.e., monotonic and smooth). We incorporate integer linear programming (ILP) as a differentiable layer input in the differentiable allocation module. Furthermore, we conduct extensive experiments on public and real product datasets, demonstrating that our E3IR improves allocation performance compared to existing two-stage approaches.

References

[1]
Meng Ai, Biao Li, Heyang Gong, Qingwei Yu, Shengjie Xue, Yuan Zhang, Yunzhou Zhang, and Peng Jiang. 2022. LBCF: A Large-Scale Budget-Constrained Causal Forest Algorithm. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 2310–2319.
[2]
Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. 2019. Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2623–2631.
[3]
Javier Albert and Dmitri Goldenberg. 2022. E-commerce promotions personalization via online multiple-choice knapsack with uplift modeling. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 2863–2872.
[4]
Brandon Amos and J Zico Kolter. 2017. Optnet: Differentiable optimization as a layer in neural networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 136–145.
[5]
Susan Athey and Stefan Wager. 2019. Estimating treatment effects with causal forests: An application. Observational studies 5, 2 (2019), 37–51.
[6]
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.
[7]
Ph Darondeau and Pierpaolo Degano. 1989. Causal trees. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming. Springer, 234–248.
[8]
Jonathan MV Davis and Sara B Heller. 2017. Using causal forests to predict treatment heterogeneity: An application to summer jobs. American Economic Review 107, 5 (2017), 546–550.
[9]
Eustache Diemert, Artem Betlei, Christophe Renaudin, and Massih-Reza Amini. 2018. A large scale benchmark for uplift modeling. In KDD.
[10]
Priya Donti, Brandon Amos, and J Zico Kolter. 2017. Task-based end-to-end model learning in stochastic optimization. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
[11]
Shuyang Du, James Lee, and Farzin Ghaffarizadeh. 2019. Improve User Retention with Causal Learning. In The 2019 ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Causal Discovery. PMLR, 34–49.
[12]
Dmitri Goldenberg, Javier Albert, Lucas Bernardi, and Pablo Estevez. 2020. Free lunch! retrospective uplift modeling for dynamic promotions recommendation within roi constraints. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 486–491.
[13]
Leo Guelman, Montserrat Guillén, and Ana M Pérez-Marín. 2015. Uplift random forests. Cybernetics and Systems 46, 3-4 (2015), 230–248.
[14]
Ali Ugur Guler, Emir Demirović, Jeffrey Chan, James Bailey, Christopher Leckie, and Peter J Stuckey. 2022. A divide and conquer algorithm for predict+ optimize with non-convex problems. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 36. 3749–3757.
[15]
Wenwei Ke, Chuanren Liu, Xiangfu Shi, Yiqiao Dai, S Yu Philip, and Xiaoqiang Zhu. 2021. Addressing exposure bias in uplift modeling for large-scale online advertising. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 1156–1161.
[16]
Gregory Koch, Richard Zemel, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, 2015. Siamese neural networks for one-shot image recognition. In ICML deep learning workshop, Vol. 2. Lille.
[17]
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 116, 10 (2019), 4156–4165.
[18]
Liangwei Li, Liucheng Sun, Chenwei Weng, Chengfu Huo, and Weijun Ren. 2020. Spending money wisely: Online electronic coupon allocation based on real-time user intent detection. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 2597–2604.
[19]
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).
[20]
Romain Lopez, Chenchen Li, Xiang Yan, Junwu Xiong, Michael Jordan, Yuan Qi, and Le Song. 2020. Cost-effective incentive allocation via structured counterfactual inference. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 34. 4997–5004.
[21]
Rahul Makhijani, Shreya Chakrabarti, Dale Struble, and Yi Liu. 2019. LORE: a large-scale offer recommendation engine with eligibility and capacity constraints. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 160–168.
[22]
Jayanta Mandi and Tias Guns. 2020. Interior point solving for lp-based prediction+ optimisation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 7272–7282.
[23]
Belbahri Mouloud, Gandouet Olivier, and Kazma Ghaith. 2020. Adapting neural networks for uplift models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.00041 (2020).
[24]
Adam M Oberman and Jeff Calder. 2018. Lipschitz regularized deep neural networks converge and generalize. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.09540 (2018).
[25]
Anselm Paulus, Michal Rolínek, Vít Musil, Brandon Amos, and Georg Martius. 2021. Comboptnet: Fit the right np-hard problem by learning integer programming constraints. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 8443–8453.
[26]
Robert L Phillips. 2021. Pricing and revenue optimization. Stanford university press.
[27]
Donald B Rubin. 2005. Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 100, 469 (2005), 322–331.
[28]
Piotr Rzepakowski and Szymon Jaroszewicz. 2010. Decision trees for uplift modeling. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE, 441–450.
[29]
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.
[30]
Claudia Shi, David Blei, and Victor Veitch. 2019. Adapting neural networks for the estimation of treatment effects. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019).
[31]
Ye Tu, Kinjal Basu, Cyrus DiCiccio, Romil Bansal, Preetam Nandy, Padmini Jaikumar, and Shaunak Chatterjee. 2021. Personalized treatment selection using causal heterogeneity. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021. 1574–1585.
[32]
Chao Wang, Xiaowei Shi, Shuai Xu, Zhe Wang, Zhiqiang Fan, Yan Feng, An You, and Yu Chen. 2023. A Multi-stage Framework for Online Bonus Allocation Based on Constrained User Intent Detection. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 5028–5038.
[33]
Bryan Wilder, Bistra Dilkina, and Milind Tambe. 2019. Melding the data-decisions pipeline: Decision-focused learning for combinatorial optimization. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 1658–1665.
[34]
Shuai Xiao, Le Guo, Zaifan Jiang, Lei Lv, Yuanbo Chen, Jun Zhu, and Shuang Yang. 2019. Model-based constrained MDP for budget allocation in sequential incentive marketing. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 971–980.
[35]
Weijia Zhang, Jiuyong Li, and Lin Liu. 2021. A unified survey of treatment effect heterogeneity modelling and uplift modelling. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 54, 8 (2021), 1–36.
[36]
Yang Zhang, Bo Tang, Qingyu Yang, Dou An, Hongyin Tang, Chenyang Xi, Xueying Li, and Feiyu Xiong. 2021. BCORLE (λ): An Offline Reinforcement Learning and Evaluation Framework for Coupons Allocation in E-commerce Market. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021), 20410–20422.
[37]
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.
[38]
Yan Zhao, Xiao Fang, and David Simchi-Levi. 2017. Uplift modeling with multiple treatments and general response types. In Proceedings of the 2017 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. SIAM, 588–596.
[39]
Zhenyu Zhao and Totte Harinen. 2019. Uplift modeling for multiple treatments with cost optimization. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA). IEEE, 422–431.
[40]
Hao Zhou, Shaoming Li, Guibin Jiang, Jiaqi Zheng, and Dong Wang. 2023. Direct heterogeneous causal learning for resource allocation problems in marketing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 37. 5446–5454.
[41]
Will Y Zou, Shuyang Du, James Lee, and Jan Pedersen. 2020. Heterogeneous causal learning for effectiveness optimization in user marketing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09702 (2020).

Index Terms

  1. End-to-End Cost-Effective Incentive Recommendation under Budget Constraint with Uplift Modeling

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      RecSys '24: Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems
      October 2024
      1438 pages
      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: 08 October 2024

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. Budget Constraint
      2. End-to-End Optimization
      3. Incentive Recommendation
      4. Uplift Modeling

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Funding Sources

      Conference

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 254 of 1,295 submissions, 20%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • 0
        Total Citations
      • 315
        Total Downloads
      • Downloads (Last 12 months)315
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)15
      Reflects downloads up to 18 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

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format.

      HTML Format

      Figures

      Tables

      Media

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media