VALOR: Value-Aware Revenue Uplift Modeling with Treatment-Gated Representation for B2B Sales

Uplift modeling (conditional-average-treatment-effect estimation) drives personalized targeting, yet published uplift benchmarks frequently disagree on which estimator performs best; we show the disagreement is substantially about metrics, not models. UpliftBench evaluates 12 uplift estimators under an outer-test-isolated, multi-objective protocol across seven dataset families; its two findings are identified where a reference objective exists -- F1 on the standard continuous benchmark (IHDP), F2 in a within-sample case study on Jobs. On that benchmark, Qini shows no detectable alignment with effect accuracy -- across all 100 IHDP realizations its mean rank correlation with effect accuracy is +0.07, 95% CI [-0.03, +0.16] -- while AUUC is consistently more aligned (paired prefix-mean-AUUC-over-Qini gap +0.49 [+0.40, +0.59]; the shipped cumulative-gain AUUC aligns better still, +0.73). On Jobs, ranking metrics are structurally insufficient for a sign-threshold policy because they discard the score level; empirically, within the released split-rotation analysis direct policy-risk selection yields lower benchmark regret than random model selection while Qini, AUUC, and uplift-at-$k$ do not (14-15% regret). Calibrating the decision threshold removes 81% of the Qini-selection regret. Both findings are bounded, not universal: F1 is not detected on either validation family (the ACIC and Revenue-Synthetic gaps are both indistinguishable from zero), and F2 vanishes under a budgeted-value objective where rank suffices. UpliftBench releases versioned loaders, fixed protocols, result artifacts, and a reproducible living leaderboard; the public repository accompanies the paper.

We study uplift estimation for combinatorial treatments. Uplift measures the pure incremental causal effect of an intervention (e.g., sending a coupon or a marketing message) on user behavior, modeled as a conditional individual treatment effect. Many real-world interventions are combinatorial: a treatment is a policy that specifies context-dependent action distributions rather than a single atomic label. Although recent work considers structured treatments, most methods rely on categorical or opaque encodings, limiting robustness and generalization to rare or newly deployed policies. We propose an uplift estimation framework that aligns treatment representation with causal semantics. Each policy is represented by the mixture it induces over contextaction components and embedded via a permutation-invariant aggregation. This representation is integrated into an orthogonalized low-rank uplift model, extending Robinson-style decompositions to learned, vector-valued treatments. We show that the resulting estimator is expressive for policy-induced causal effects, orthogonally robust to nuisance estimation errors, and stable under small policy perturbations. Experiments on large-scale randomized platform data demonstrate improved uplift accuracy and stability in long-tailed policy regimes

Estimating Conditional Average Treatment Effects (CATE) at the individual level is central to precision marketing, yet systematic benchmarking of uplift modeling methods at industrial scale remains limited. We present UpliftBench, an empirical evaluation of four CATE estimators: S-Learner, T-Learner, X-Learner (all with LightGBM base learners), and Causal Forest (EconML), applied to the Criteo Uplift v2.1 dataset comprising 13.98 million customer records. The near-random treatment assignment (propensity AUC = 0.509) provides strong internal validity for causal estimation. Evaluated via Qini coefficient and cumulative gain curves, the S-Learner achieves the highest Qini score of 0.376, with the top 20% of customers ranked by predicted CATE capturing 77.7% of all incremental conversions, a 3.9x improvement over random targeting. SHAP analysis identifies f8 as the dominant heterogeneous treatment effect (HTE) driver among the 12 anonymized covariates. Causal Forest uncertainty quantification reveals that 1.9% of customers are confident persuadables (lower 95% CI > 0) and 0.1% are confident sleeping dogs (upper 95% CI < 0). Our results provide practitioners with evidence-based guidance on method selection for large-scale uplift modeling pipelines.