Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

UTBoost: Gradient Boosted Decision Trees for Uplift Modeling

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2312.02573 v2 pith:NNVDI25X submitted 2023-12-05 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords learningdecisiongradientimpactincrementalmodelingmodificationsoutcomes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Uplift modeling comprises a collection of machine learning techniques designed for managers to predict the incremental impact of specific actions on customer outcomes. However, accurately estimating this incremental impact poses significant challenges due to the necessity of determining the difference between two mutually exclusive outcomes for each individual. In our study, we introduce two novel modifications to the established Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT) technique. These modifications sequentially learn the causal effect, addressing the counterfactual dilemma. Each modification innovates upon the existing technique in terms of the ensemble learning method and the learning objective, respectively. Experiments with large-scale datasets validate the effectiveness of our methods, consistently achieving substantial improvements over baseline models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. FairUDT: Fairness-aware Uplift Decision Trees

    cs.LG 2025-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    FairUDT uses uplift-style divergence splitting and selective leaf relabeling to reduce demographic parity and average odds gaps on three fairness benchmarks, with test-set relabeling in its main evaluation.

Pith tools