Uplifting conversion across the acquisition funnel with personalization using contextual bandits on AWS

來源原標題

Uplifting conversion across the acquisition funnel with personalization using contextual bandits on AWS

作者

Chidi Prince John

原始標籤

Amazon SageMaker AI · Customer Solutions

原始連結

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/uplifting-conversion-across-the-acquisition-funnel-with-personalization-using-contextual-bandits-on-aws/

摘要原文

Generative AI has made it possible to produce large amounts of personalized content quickly and at low cost. In our previous post , we showed how generative AI on Amazon Bedrock can produce personalized content at scale while staying within brand guidelines and guardrails. The new challenge is now one of selection. Among all of those options, which one do you show each customer, and how long does it take to learn the answer? This post tackles the selection challenge that follows the proliferation. In this post, we share how Amazon Payments applied AI-based personalization to a product acquisition funnel, using a multi-objective contextual multi-armed bandit (MAB) on Amazon SageMaker AI . In a seven-week online A/B test we currently see a high single-digit percentage relative lift in final-funnel conversion for one customer population, while another saw no improvement over the existing experience. The problem turned out to be the content, not the model. We cover the intuition behind bandits, our extension to optimize an entire conversion funnel, and the AWS architecture behind the solution. We also share a code repository that you can use to test this approach on synthetic data and understand the method hands-on using Amazon SageMaker AI. A multi-armed bandit (MAB) is a reinforcement learning method built for settings with many options and limited traffic. It learns which option performs best while continuing to serve customers. It treats each content variation as an “arm,” tries each against live traffic, and steadily shifts impressions toward the arms that perform, while holding a fraction back to keep testing the rest. This is the fundamental trade-off between exploitation (serve the current best arm) and exploration (try less-certain arms to gather evidence). Because a bandit never stops doing both, it keeps improving as new variations are added, and it never has to wait for a test to conclude. A/B/n testing still has its place, but as generative AI accelerates the number of variations to learn from, we expect bandits to play a growing role. There are several bandit selection strategies in the literature: epsilon-greedy, Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), Thompson sampling, among others. For a deeper introduction to these methods and their deployment on AWS, see our earlier post Dynamic A/B testing for machine learning models with Amazon SageMaker MLOps Projects . In Amazon Payments, we chose UCB, a strategy that selects the arm with the highest estimated reward plus an uncertainty bonus, naturally balancing exploitation and exploration. Its deterministic selection rule gives an auditable, reproducible decision for every impression, which makes sure every serving decision can be explained and reproduced if needed. However, a standard bandit learns one best arm for the entire audience. Personalization requires conditioning on who the visitor is, and that is what contextual bandits provide. Instead of asking “which content is the best overall?,” a contextual bandit conditions its decision on signals about the visit. Segmented bandits run a separate instance per hand-defined group, but the groups are arbitrary and each needs its own traffic. Contextual bandits condition directly on a feature vector (a numeric representation of attributes), so a pattern learned in one context transfers to every similar visit without separate per-group traffic. Our production system represents each customer as a context vector of behavioral signals (payment behavior, transaction mix, and similar features) in place of a fixed segment. The entity ID (an opaque key such as entity_id ) is used only to route the learned recommendation back to the right visitor. It is never a model input. For a contextual approach, we selected Linear UCB (LinUCB), introduced by Li et al. (2010) . While newer bandit algorithms exist, LinUCB remains a battle-tested method that is computationally efficient, auditable (deterministic arm selection), and naturally handles a large arm space with limited warm-start data. Its key assumption is that the expected reward for an arm is a linear function of the context vector, which lets it generalize to visitors it has not seen before. Each arm keeps two running tallies updated on every impression: Dividing reward by experience gives the estimate (θ = A⁻¹·b). The experience ledger also shrinks the exploration bonus as evidence grows. The arm’s score is: The bonus is context-dependent. It’s large for a kind of visitor the arm has rarely seen, and small for one it has seen often. A plain bandit explores at a single global rate, while LinUCB adjusts how much it explores for every visitor it scores. The customer journey in our use case comprises three steps: application start, submission, and approval. The objective is therefore a multi-stage outcome, not a single metric. These stages do not move in unison. Content optimized for starts tends to attract a broad audience, yet approval depends on whether the offer genuinely suits the applicant. Optimizing one stage in isolation can degrade another. We refer to this as the seesaw problem. Conversely, optimizing solely for approvals starves the model of signal, because approvals are rare and delayed. Our approach optimizes the entire funnel simultaneously by running one LinUCB model per stage (start, submit, approve) and combining their UCB scores through a linear combination: The stage weights can be assigned based on business priorities or learned by a separate calibration step. We used approximately equal weights. In practice, one could weight approvals more heavily once the model is warmed or use a Pareto frontier if the trade-off is genuinely contested. Here’s the core of the model in Python. Each LinUCBDisjoint maintains independent parameters per arm, and MultiObjectiveLinUCB composes three of them: We built a quick start Jupyter notebook to test this approach on Amazon SageMaker AI. The repository also includes a command-line demo and unit tests. Tuning the alpha. The α parameter controls the exploration-exploitation balance. Higher values encourage exploration of under-tested arms, and lower values favor exploitation. A value of α = 1.0 is a reasonable default (Li et al., 2010). In practice, start higher when the arm space is large and history is limited, then reduce α as evidence accumulates. A typical range is 0.1 to 2.0. Values that are too high waste traffic on weak arms, and values that are too low risk locking onto a suboptimal arm. Because α is a single scalar, a grid search is straightforward. Handling delayed feedback. In our setting, approval decisions lag by days, so the reward for the final funnel stage isn’t observed until well after the impression. We address this with an attribution window. Starts and submissions update the model immediately, while approval outcomes are held back until the subsequent batch cycle, avoiding downward bias from pending applications. This aligns naturally with our weekly processing cadence. A bandit is only as good as the pool of arms. Building a rich arm pool responsibly is the next problem to solve at scale while maintaining content oversight. The key idea is to compose many variations from a small set of reviewed building blocks. Our content was assembled from two kinds of parts: industry-themed images and benefit-focused taglines . The arm space is the Cartesian product of these parts, so each arm is one (image, tagline) pairing and a modest number of building blocks produces a large pool of distinct page variations. Figure 1: Building blocks are vetted individually, then combined into the full arm pool That structure also makes the approach scalable without sacrificing oversight, through a few layers of control. Vetting the parts, not the combinations. Some content elements are fixed by stakeholder requirements. Rather than reviewing every possible combination, which would be impractical as the space grows, we vet each individual building block up front.