Posterior probability of uplift
A direct answer to how likely it is that the treatment helped — and how much less comfortable that answer becomes once a threshold that matters is attached.
A direct answer to how likely it is that the treatment helped — and how much less comfortable that answer becomes once a threshold that matters is attached.
The change in conversion rate caused by a variant, on two scales that differ by a factor of the baseline. The relative figure needs its own interval formula.
What applying an intervention costs per unit — including the margin given away to customers who needed no persuading.
The revenue a treatment caused rather than accompanied. Heavy-tailed, wide-intervalled, and not profit until a margin and a cost are applied.
How much more recovery an intervention produced than doing nothing — a rate, in percentage points, and not a quantity until a population is attached.
The units a campaign actually caused. Why counting them is not the same as counting revenue, and why a promotion can win on one and lose on the other.
Random assignment supports the plain treated-versus-control comparison; random ranking supplies an uplift baseline. Observational estimates need additional identification and adjustment assumptions.
Causal ML relaxes the shape of the model, not the assumptions that make a comparison causal. Those stay exactly as strong as before.
The incremental outcome accumulated as targeting goes deeper down an uplift ranking. Why it cannot be a sum over customers, and how to read where it flattens.
The extra outcome produced inside one slice of a ranking. Computed from response rates rather than counts, and not additive across slices when the treated share differs between them.
Everything a campaign produced that would not have happened anyway. Converting it to money, carrying its interval, and why treating everyone rarely wins.
The incremental outcome collected down to a depth of a ranking. Accumulating slice by slice gives a different answer from computing it directly.
Radcliffe’s incremental gains chart: treated responders minus what an equal treated group would have produced untreated. Its baselines, and why they matter.
The per-unit output of an uplift model: a difference of two predicted probabilities, not a probability. What it supports, and what it cannot be checked against.
Trees that split on the effect of treating rather than on the outcome, averaged. The criteria that make the splits, and the interpretability it costs.
Cumulative incremental outcome against the share targeted. Why its vertical axis scales a difference of response rates into an incremental response count, and where to cut the campaign.
Incremental revenue converted to contribution through the margin, with the campaign’s cost taken out, and the interval the result inherits.
The conversions a campaign caused, as opposed to the ones it was merely present for. What the scaling to a full population quietly assumes.
The incremental effect within the top k percent by predicted uplift — the number that matters when the campaign volume is already fixed.
The area under the uplift curve, reduced to a single number — by at least three different conventions that do not agree, on the same model and the same data.
A single number for an uplift model’s ranking, from the area above the random diagonal. The normalization changes it more than most model differences do.
The difference between the outcome with the treatment and the outcome without it. Why a response model does not estimate it, and what the number is attached to.