加入新推出的
Discord 社区,展开实时讨论,获得同行支持,并直接与 Meridian 团队互动!
关于因果推理方法 MMM
使用集合让一切井井有条
根据您的偏好保存内容并对其进行分类。
下面对营销组合建模分析 (MMM) 这种因果推理方法进行了归纳总结:
MMM 是一种因果推理工具,用于估计广告预算水平和分配对 KPI 的影响。MMM 得出的投资回报率和响应曲线等数据洞见具有明确的因果解释,建模方法必须适合此类分析。
因果推理框架具有诸多重要优势,这些优势也是任何有效且可解释的 MMM 分析的关键组成部分:
众所周知,随机实验被认为是估计因果影响的理想方式。但 MMM 是基于观测性数据进行因果推理的一种方式。
与实验相比,MMM 具有以下重要优势:
就广告而言,许多实验设计都需要个人用户级数据,而这不符合最新的隐私保护标准。但 MMM 使用的是汇总的观测性数据,可确保隐私安全。
实验往往会因为费用和可行性方面的原因而难以开展,观测性数据则很容易获得。
实验通常旨在估计一个特定的数量。例如,在广告业,地理位置实验的目的可能是估计电视等特定渠道的广告支出回报率。MMM 等因果推理模型可以提供许多数据洞见,如每个媒体渠道的投资回报率、完整的响应曲线和预算分配,而不需要复杂、严谨但可能不切实际的实验设计。
可检验和不可检验的假设
由于 MMM 以观测性数据为基础,因此需要大多数实验所不需要的统计假设。这些假设可以分为不可检验和可检验两类。
为什么说从可行性的角度来看,这些假设很重要?许多模型都可能具有良好的拟合度和预测能力,但会提供不同的投资回报率和优化结果,因此很难选出最佳模型。
不可检验的假设
有一种条件叫做条件可交换性,若要让 MMM 回归模型提供准确的因果推理结果,必须使用此条件作为主要的不可检验假设。之所以说这一条件不可检验,是因为没有统计方法可以纯粹根据观测性数据来确定其有效性。
一般而言,条件可交换性意味着控制变量集同时满足以下条件:
您可以使用因果图来证明条件可交换性假设的合理性。因果图必须基于专业领域知识进行构建,因为没有任何统计检验可单纯根据观测性数据来确定图表结构是否正确。
实际上,可交换性假设永远不会完全满足。有个适用于假设的经典原则:“模型皆有误,或由建奇功”。
可检验的假设
总结
根据基于观测性数据进行因果推理的基本原则,MMM 没有绝对的最佳解决方案。我们建议所有 MMM 实操人员,无论是使用 Meridian 还是其他任何解决方案,都要在因果推理框架内对 MMM 进行批判性思考。Meridian 的使命是让您充分了解 MMM 是什么、其如何运作以及您应如何解读结果。
如未另行说明,那么本页面中的内容已根据知识共享署名 4.0 许可获得了许可,并且代码示例已根据 Apache 2.0 许可获得了许可。有关详情,请参阅 Google 开发者网站政策。Java 是 Oracle 和/或其关联公司的注册商标。
最后更新时间 (UTC):2025-08-04。
[null,null,["最后更新时间 (UTC):2025-08-04。"],[[["\u003cp\u003eMarketing Mix Modeling (MMM) is a causal inference methodology used to estimate the impact of advertising spending on key performance indicators (KPIs) like ROI.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eMMM leverages observational data, making it advantageous for privacy, cost-effectiveness, and generating diverse insights compared to randomized experiments.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eThe accuracy of MMM relies on assumptions, categorized as testable (model structure) and untestable (conditional exchangeability, requiring domain expertise), impacting model selection.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eWhile achieving a perfect MMM solution is unrealistic, adopting a causal inference framework is crucial for understanding model functionality and result interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\n"],["\u003cp\u003eMeridian aims to provide transparency by emphasizing the importance of understanding MMM principles and assumptions for informed decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n"]]],[],null,["# About MMM as a causal inference methodology\n\nConsider the following generalizations about marketing mix modeling (MMM) as a\ncausal inference methodology:\n\n- MMM is a causal inference tool for estimating the impact your advertising\n budget level and allocation have on KPI. MMM-derived insights such as ROI\n and response curves have a clear causal interpretation, and the modeling\n methodology must be appropriate for this type of analysis.\n\n- The causal inference framework has important benefits, which are also\n critical components of any valid and interpretable MMM analysis:\n\n - ROI and other causal estimands are clearly defined using potential\n outcomes notation, which is both intuitive and mathematically rigorous.\n\n - Necessary assumptions can be determined and made transparent. All models\n require assumptions to provide valid estimates of the causal estimands.\n\n- It is common knowledge that randomized experiments are considered the ideal\n way to estimate causal effects. MMM, however, is an example of causal\n inference from observational data.\n\n- MMM has important advantages over experiments:\n\n - In the case of advertising, many experimental designs require individual\n user-level data that does not meet modern privacy standards. MMM uses\n observational data at an aggregate level that is privacy safe.\n\n - Experiments are often difficult to run due to cost and practicality.\n Observational data, on the other hand, is readily obtainable.\n\n - Experiments are typically designed to estimate one specific quantity. In\n advertising, for example, a geo experiment might be designed to estimate the\n ROAS of a specific channel such as TV. A causal inference model, such as\n MMM, can provide many insights such as ROI for every media channel, full\n response curves, and budget allocation without needing a complex and\n rigorous experimental design that might be impractical.\n\nTestable and untestable assumptions\n-----------------------------------\n\nBecause MMM is based on observational data, it requires statistical assumptions\nthat are not necessary for most experiments. These assumptions can be\ncategorized as\n[untestable](/meridian/docs/basics/about-mmm-causal-inference-methodology#untestable_assumptions)\nand\n[testable](/meridian/docs/basics/about-mmm-causal-inference-methodology#testable_assumptions).\n\nWhy do these assumptions matter from a practical standpoint? Multiple models can\nhave good fit and predictive power yet provide different ROI and optimization\nresults, therefore making it difficult to choose the best model.\n\n### Untestable assumptions\n\n- A condition known as conditional exchangeability is the main untestable\n assumption required for an MMM regression model to provide accurate causal\n inference results. This condition is untestable because there is no\n statistical way to determine its validity purely from observational data.\n\n- Generally, *conditional exchangeability* means that the control variable set\n both:\n\n - Includes all confounding variables, which are variables that causally\n affect both media execution and KPI, and\n\n - Excludes any mediator variables, which are variables that lie in the\n causal pathway between media and KPI\n\n- A causal graph can be used to justify the conditional exchangeability\n assumption. The causal graph must be constructed based on expert domain\n knowledge, as there is no statistical test to determine the correct graph\n structure purely from observational data.\n\n- In reality, the exchangeability assumption is never perfectly met. The\n classic principle applies that \"all models are wrong but some are useful\".\n\n### Testable assumptions\n\n- Testable assumptions include anything related to the mathematical structure\n of the model. Consider:\n\n - How are media effects represented in the model, including lagged effects\n and diminishing returns?\n\n - How are control variables modeled? Are nonlinear transformations\n required?\n\n - How are trend and seasonality modeled?\n\n- Testable assumptions can be evaluated to a certain extent by goodness of fit\n metrics, including prediction metrics such as out-of-sample R-squared.\n However:\n\n - Goodness of fit metrics don't give a complete picture of how good a\n model is for causal inference, and it is likely that the best model for\n causal inference is different from the best model for prediction.\n\n - The more candidate models you are comparing, the higher the risk of\n overfitting. For example, the best model is not the one that appears to\n have the best out-of-sample fit.\n\n - There is no threshold for R-squared or other metrics that makes a model\n good or bad. A model with 99% out-of-sample R-squared can still be a\n poor model for causal inference.\n\nConclusions\n-----------\n\nThere is no absolute best solution to MMM, which follows from the fundamental\nprinciples of causal inference from observational data. We recommend that all\nMMM practitioners think critically about MMM within a causal inference\nframework, regardless of whether you use Meridian\nor any other solution. The mission of Meridian is to provide you with\nthe utmost clarity about what your MMM is, how it works, and how you should\ninterpret your results."]]