  This study presents a systematic comparison of methods for individual
treatment assignment, a general problem that arises in many applications and
has received significant attention from economists, computer scientists, and
social scientists. We group the various methods proposed in the literature into
three general classes of algorithms (or metalearners): learning models to
predict outcomes (the O-learner), learning models to predict causal effects
(the E-learner), and learning models to predict optimal treatment assignments
(the A-learner). We compare the metalearners in terms of (1) their level of
generality and (2) the objective function they use to learn models from data;
we then discuss the implications that these characteristics have for modeling
and decision making. Notably, we demonstrate analytically and empirically that
optimizing for the prediction of outcomes or causal effects is not the same as
optimizing for treatment assignments, suggesting that in general the A-learner
should lead to better treatment assignments than the other metalearners. We
demonstrate the practical implications of our findings in the context of
choosing, for each user, the best algorithm for playlist generation in order to
optimize engagement. This is the first comparison of the three different
metalearners on a real-world application at scale (based on more than half a
billion individual treatment assignments). In addition to supporting our
analytical findings, the results show how large A/B tests can provide
substantial value for learning treatment assignment policies, rather than
simply choosing the variant that performs best on average.
