I don't know of any books dedicated to treatment alone, though there are a few which cover the science of acoustics and psychoacoustics. If you're looking for guidance on treatment alone, the best resource I found was
acousticsinsider.com. This is a paid-for service, that gives you access to written guides and videos explaining what type of treatment exists, which ones to use, why the particular treatment is best for a certain situation, the reasoning behind it, and how to DIY build them yourself (complete with material lists and carpentry guides).
Some caveats now: the acoustician behind the site, Jesco Lohan, heavily favours porous absorption, almost to the exclusion of anything else (at least in the room sizes you'd typically find in a house). He has plenty of experience building these and seems to understand the science very well. He also provides plenty of real-world examples of treatments he's helped build/design, along with REW measurements and photos of the space. That said, there are plenty of people both here in the forums and on other acoustic sites (like gearspace), who vehemently disagree with his methodology (
@Bjorn comes to mind).
Another caveat is that Jesco specifically targets his treatment plans at professional audio technicians, and clearly states it's not for audiophiles. I have yet to hear an explanation of how these two groups are supposed to differ in terms of music listening - presumably the technician mastered the music in a way that maximises their enjoyment of it, and so treating your listening room the same way they treated their studio, should most faithfully recreate what they perceived to be as close to the perfect way to experience that music, no? I think I heard something about technicians wanting to hear every last detail of a song, more than enjoy it - but isn't hearing details enjoyable?
The main argument I hear against the porous absorption method proposed by Jesco, is that it will deaden the room, and isn't good at managing frequencies below 100Hz. For what little it's worth, I haven't found those arguments compelling. Firstly, what exactly is a "dead" room quantitatively? Does it mean uneven timing? Uneven reverb? Does it mean too little reverb, regardless of the how even it is across the frequency spectrum? How much is too little - below 500ms? How do we know this, are the studies? Polls? Is this from personal experience building rooms? Hearsay?
Regarding the low frequency effectiveness, Jesco says with a reasonable amount of it, you can get control down to 40Hz. As aforementioned, he shows before/after REW measurements to prove it. The only counter arguments I've heard are "no it doesn't - trust me".
Bottom-line, the people arguing that there are better ways to treat rooms other than brute-forcing it with porous absorption, may very well be right. However, they all essentially ask you take their word for it and at that point how do you differentiate between them and a snake-oil salesman? I'm not saying they are - there are clearly very experience professionals here and elsewhere online. All I'm saying is that, unless they take the time to explain themselves, how on Earth is a non-professional supposed to tell them apart? But on the other hand, why should they take time out of their day to write up explanations for free?