Uplift modeling tutorial. Part 1

Knowing the characteristic description $$th object $$, you can enter the conditional averaged effect of the impact CATE (Conditional Average Treatment Effect):

Nor causal effect $$nor $$ for $$of the th object we observe, and, accordingly, we can’t optimize. Therefore, we proceed to the assessment $$ or specific object uplift formula:

Where $$ – the observed reaction of the client as a result of a marketing campaign, which is determined as follows:

Where $$ – flag that the object hit the target (treatment) the group where the communication was, $$ – flag that the object fell into the control (control) a group where there was no communication.

It is worth noting that the formula for uplift is applicable only under the following Conditional Independence Assumption (CIA) assumption: the separation into the target and control groups occurs randomly, and not depending on the value of some attribute. Potential object reaction $$ – this is only a consequence of the characteristics of this object $$ (for example, the installation of an application for renting apartments depends on the age and city of residence), which appears before he gets into any group (target or control). Briefly, this can be written as:

In this case, the observed reaction of the object $$ already depends on the separation into the target and control group, as follows from the definition.

Experiment design

So, we need to evaluate the difference between two events that are mutually exclusive for a particular client (either we communicate with a person or not; you cannot simultaneously perform these two actions). That is why, to build uplift models, additional requirements are imposed on the source data.

To obtain a training sample for uplift modeling, it is necessary to conduct an experiment:

1. To randomly divide the representative part of the client base into target and control groups;
2. Launch a marketing campaign pilot to a target group.

The only difference between the experiment and the future campaign should be the fact that in the first case, we select random customers for interaction, and in the second, customers based on the predicted uplift value. If the marketing campaign is significantly different from the experiment used to collect data on the implementation of targeted actions by customers, then the constructed model may be less reliable and accurate.

The collected data on the responses to the marketing proposal obtained as part of such an experiment will allow us to further build the uplift forecasting model.

Before conducting the main campaign, it is recommended, similarly to the experiment, to randomly select a small part of the client base and divide it into control and target groups. Using these data, it will be possible not only to adequately assess the effectiveness of the campaign, but also to collect additional data for further retraining of the model.

The scheme is taken and adapted from [1]

In addition, it is recommended to configure the development of the uplift model and launch the campaign as an iterative process: at each iteration, new training data about the responses will be collected, which consists of combining a random subset of clients and clients selected by the model.

I would not want to use the results of the impact on the customers selected by the model as a training sample, since the customers were not taken randomly. However, these data are of great value, so they should be studied and used to further improve the model and increase the response from future campaigns.

Types of customers

It is customary to distinguish 4 types of clients by reaction to communication:

1. Do Not Not Disturbs – a person who will react negatively if you communicate with him.
2. Lost (Lost Causes) – a person who never performs the target action, regardless of communication. Interaction with such clients does not bring additional income, but creates additional costs.
3. Loyal (Sure Things) – a person who will respond positively, no matter what. This is the most loyal kind of customers. By analogy with the previous paragraph, such customers also spend the budget.
4. Persuaded (Persuadables) – this is a person who responds positively to a proposal, but in his absence would not have performed the target action. These are the people whom we would like to define as our model in order to communicate with them.

It is worth noting that, depending on the client base and company features, some of these types of clients may be missing. In addition, the implementation of the target action strongly depends on various characteristics of the campaign itself, for example, the interaction channel or the type and size of the proposed marketing offer. To maximize profits, you should also select these parameters.

Thus, predicting uplift and choosing the top predictions, we want to find only one of four types – convinced. There are several ways to do this.

One model with a sign of communication

Treatment Dummy approach, Solo model approach, Single model approach, S-Learner

The simplest and most intuitive solution: the model learns simultaneously in two groups, while the binary communication flag acts as an additional feature. We scream each object from the test sample twice: with the communication flag equal to 1 and equal to 0. Subtracting the probabilities for each observation, we obtain the desired uplift.

In some articles, for example [2], it is proposed to double the number of features by adding the product of each feature to the interaction flag: $$:

Two independent models

Two models approach, T-learner, difference two models

The approach with two models is one of the most popular and is quite common in articles, for example [3] and [4]. The method consists in a separate simulation of two conditional probabilities on the target and control groups, namely:

1. The first model is being built that estimates the likelihood of performing the target action among the clients with whom we interacted.
2. A second model is being built, evaluating the same probability, but among customers with whom we did not communicate.
3. Then, for each client, the difference in the probability estimates of the two models is calculated.

Two dependent models (dependent data representation)

Dependent Data Representation

The dependent data view approach presented in [5], based on the classifier chain method, originally developed for multiclass classification problems. The idea is that if available $$ various labels can be built $$ various classifiers, each of which solves the problem of binary classification. In the learning process, each subsequent classifier uses the predictions of the previous ones as additional attributes. The authors of this method suggested using the same idea to solve the problem of uplift modeling in two stages. First, we train the classifier according to control data:

$$

then make predictions $$ as a new feature for training the second classifier on test data, thereby introducing a relationship between two data sets:

$$

To get the uplift for each observation, we calculate the difference:

$$

So the second classifier studies the difference between the expected result in the test and control, i.e. uplift itself.

Similarly, you can first train the classifier $$and then use its predictions as a sign for the classifier $$.

Two dependent models (cross-dependence)

X-learner

The method is based on the construction of two models, in the same way as in the two previous approaches. Authors [6] recommend using it when the target group is small enough. In this case, there is a risk that the model built on the target group will have insufficient generalizing ability. Therefore, a cross-dependence of two models is created in order to strengthen one model with the data of another.

1. First, we train two models in parallel: one on the control group, the other on the target group (as in the method with two independent models):

2. Then we transform both target variables using the predictions of the control model on the data of the target group and the predictions of the target model on the data of the control group. The values ​​obtained are denoted as $$ and $$ and are called the sane effect of exposure.

If grades $$ and $$ would be not predictions, but real quantities (which we actually cannot observe), then $$ and $$ would be equal to uplift, i.e. $$

3. Train two new models on converted targets $$ and $$:

4. Weighted with some coefficient $$ the sum of the predictions of these models will be uplift. Therefore, the process of applying the model will look as follows:

It is recommended to choose $$if the size of the target group is large compared to the size of the control group, and $$if vice versa. Moreover, $$ can be considered not only as a constant, but as some function of an object – $$.

Conclusion

This article examined the features of uplift models, the process of collecting data and conducting marketing campaigns, as well as the basic methods of modeling uplift. In the next part, we will continue to talk about more interesting approaches.

useful links

• Jupyter notebook using python scikit-uplift library example from Maxim Shevchenko (maks-sh)
• Uplift Modeling Report from Irina Elisova (iraelisova) to Data Fest 6
• Report about uplift modeling from Valery Babushkin (venheads)
• Report on sending personal messages to individuals to bank customers from Alexander Fonarev to Data Fest 5
• Profit Driven Business Analytics by Verbeke, Wouter & Baesens, Bart & Bravo, Cristián – a great book with a chapter on uplift modeling

Sources

• [1] Verbeke, Wouter & Baesens, Bart & Bravo, Cristián. (2018). Profit Driven Business Analytics: A Practitioner’s Guide to Transforming Big Data into Added Value.
• [2] Lo, Victor. (2002). The True Lift Model – A Novel Data Mining Approach to Response Modeling in Database Marketing … SIGKDD Explorations. 4. 78-86.
• [3] Radcliffe, N.J. (2007). Using control groups to target on predicted lift: Building and assessing uplift model. Direct Market J Direct Market Assoc Anal Council, 1: 14–21, 2007.
• [4] Nassif, Houssam & Kuusisto, F. & Burnside, Elizabeth & Shavlik, J … (2014). Uplift modeling with ROC: An SRL case study. CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 1187. 40-45.
• [5] Betlei, Artem & Diemert, Eustache & Amini, Massih-Reza. (2018). Uplift Prediction with Dependent Feature Representation in Imbalanced Treatment and Control Conditions: 25th International Conference, ICONIP 2018, Siem Reap, Cambodia, December 13-16, 2018, Proceedings, Part V. 10.1007 / 978-3-030-04221-9_5.
• [6] Zhao, Yan & Fang, Xiao & Simchi-Levi, David. (2017). Uplift Modeling with Multiple Treatments and General Response Types. 10.1137 / 1.9781611974973.66.
• [7] Gutierrez, P., & Gérardy, J. Y. (2017). Causal Inference and Uplift Modeling: A Review of the Literature. In International Conference on Predictive Applications and APIs (pp. 1-13).