Project and Product Selection
description
Transcript of Project and Product Selection
04/01/2003 1
Project and Product Selection
by He Jiang
Department of ManagementUniversity of Utah
April 1st, 2003
04/01/2003 2
Outline
• On Integrating Catalogs• A Hierarchical Constraint Satisfaction
Approach to Product Selection for Electronic Shopping Support
• A Multiple Attribute Utility Theory Approach to Ranking and Selection
04/01/2003 3
On Integrating Catalogs
Rakesh Agrawal and Ramakrishnan Srikant
IBM Almaden Research Center
04/01/2003 4
Summary
• Problem: integrating documents from different sources into a master catalog.
• Gaps: Many data sources have their own categorizations; implicit similarity information in these source catalogs may be ignored.
• Approaches: Naïve Bayes classification• Contribution: classification accuracy can be
improved by incorporate the implicit similarity information present in these source categorizations
04/01/2003 5
Problem—Why Integration?
• B2C shops need to integrate catalogs from multiple vendors ( Amazon);
• B2B portals merged into one company (Chipcenter & Questlink eChips);
• Information portals categorize documents into categories (Google & Yahoo!).
• Corporate portals Merge intra-company and external information into a uniform categorization
04/01/2003 6
Problem Identification—Model Building
• Problem identification: classification problem.
• Master catalog M with categories C1, C2, …, Cn;
• Source catalog N with categories S1, S2, …, Sm;
• Merge documents in N into M.
04/01/2003 7
Question
How to Integrate?
04/01/2003 8
Straightforward Approach:• Completely ignore N’s categorization, put each of N’s
product into M’s category according to M’s classification rule.
04/01/2003 9
Enhanced Approach
• incorporate the implicit categorization information present in N into M.
04/01/2003 10
Assumptions and Limitations
• M and N may are homogeneous and have significant overlap;
• M and N use the same vocabularies (Larkey, 1999).• Catalog hierarchies is flattened and is treated as a set of
categories(Good 1965 & Chakrabarti 1997) • Different hierarchy levels (if M>N, can help distinguish
categories that M doesn’t have; if N>M, NBHC can be applied.
04/01/2003 11
Related Works and Gaps
• Naïve-Bayes classifiers are accurate and fast(Chakrabarti et al 1997, …), so we choose Bayesian model;
• Folder systems such as email routing(Agrawal et al, 2000,…), action predicting(Maes, 1994 & Payne et al, 1997), query organizing using text clustering(Sahami et al, 1998) and filings transferring(Dolin et al 1999); But none of this systems address the task of merging hierarchies
• The Athena system includes the facility of reorganizing folder hierarchy into a new hierarchy (Agrawal et al, 2000); But no information from the old hierarchy is used in either building the model or routing the documents.
04/01/2003 12
Straightforward Approach
othereach oft independen are din words:Assumption
)|Pr()|Pr(•
dataset in the documents ofnumber TotalCCategory in documents ofNumber )Pr(•
)Pr()|Pr()Pr()|Pr(
i
dt
ii
i
iii
CtCd
C
dCdCdC
:ddocument agiven Ccategory ofy probabilitPosterior :classifier Bayes Naïve i
04/01/2003 13
t ii
i
i
ii
tCnCn
tCnVCn
tCnCt
),()(y. vocabular theof size theis |V|
Cicategory in documentsin t wordof soccurrence ofnumber the—),(
0 ,||)(
),()|Pr(
Straightforward Approach—Continued
04/01/2003 14
Enhanced Bayes Classification
M.in Ccategory in documents ofnumber theis |C| where
) )Cin be topredicted Sin docs of(Number |C(|)Cin be topredicated Sin documents ofNumber (|C|
Sin documents ofnumber TotalCin be topredicated Sin documents ofNumber )|Pr(
Nin category a denotes S where)|Pr(
)|Pr()|Pr(),|Pr(
ii
jn
1j j
ii
i
SC
SdCdSCSdC
i
iii
04/01/2003 15
Effect of Weight on Accuracy
• Weight can make difference for a given M and N; Tune set method to select a good value for the weight.
• • in which the document will be correctly classified or will
never be correctly classified• The highest possible accuracy achievable with the
enhanced algorithm is no worse than what can be achieved with the basic algorithm.
ff then , if 0, , weight ofpair given any For :1 Theorem21 xx2121
), ,( interval aexist thered,document each For :2 Theorem 21
04/01/2003 16
Experimental Results—Data Sets Used
• Synthetic catalog: deriving source catalog N from M using different distributions(e.g. Gaussian).
• Real Catalog: two real-world catalogs that have some common documents; treat the first catalog minus the common documents as M, the remaining documents in the second catalog as N;
04/01/2003 17
Experimental Results
04/01/2003 18
Experimental Results
04/01/2003 19
Experimental Results
04/01/2003 20
Experimental Results—Catalog Size
04/01/2003 21
Experimental Results—Catalog Size
04/01/2003 22
Contributions and Future Research Directions
• Contributions: enhancing the standard Naive Bayes classification by incorporating the category information of the source catalogs; the highest accuracy of the enhanced technique can be no worse than that can be achieved by standard Naïve Bayes classification.
• Future research: using other classifiers such as SVM to incorporating the implicit information of N requires further work
04/01/2003 23
A Hierarchical Constraint Satisfaction Approach to Product Selection for
Electronic Shopping Support
Young U. Ryu
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and humans
Vol. 29, No. 6, November 1999
04/01/2003 24
Summary
• Problem: proposing a product selection mechanism for electronic shopping support;
• Approach: hierarchical constraint satisfaction (HCS) approach
• Gap: simple taxonomy hierarchy(STH) approach is flawed in that the the search is conducted on a single generic product hierarchy;
• HCS is more powerful and flexible than STH.
04/01/2003 25
Simple taxonomy Hierarchy Approach
04/01/2003 26
Question
• 1. How do we search for a sugar-free decaffeinated cola?
• 2. If there isn’t a cola that satisfy all the requirements, i.e., cola, sugar-free and decaffeinated. what’s your recommendation?
04/01/2003 27
Gaps
• Search is conducted on a single generic product hierarchy;
• There may exist a product that cannot satisfy all the constraints;
• A product may be evaluated to be better than another while there is no big differences between these two products.
04/01/2003 28
Hierarchical Constraint Satisfaction Approach• Constraint Satisfaction: a methodology
determining assignments of values to variables that are consistent with given constraint;
• Hierarchical Constraint Satisfaction: an extension of STH which minimizes the the satisfaction errors of hierarchically organized constraints based on their importance;
• Value of HCS: can be applied to cases in which there isn’t a solution that is consistent with given constraints due to conflicting constraints.
04/01/2003 29
Concepts Introduced
• Constraint domain transformation: transformation of a Boolean constraint to a arithmetic constraint;
• Tree domain: is one whose elements are structured as a tree; thus can be handled more flexibly;
• Indifference interval: overcome a shortcoming of hierarchical reasoning when the difference between two alternatives is small;
04/01/2003 30
Constraint Satisfaction Error
• Measures the degree of satisfaction of an arithmetic constrain c by the constraint satisfaction error function
• for Boolean constraint, transform them into arithmetic constraints;
• e.g.
),( ic
......200451805510545
,
2004518055320
,
),,(
3
2
1
3
2
1
321
xxx
ifgreen
xxx
ifred
xxxf
04/01/2003 31
Hierarchical reasoning and indifference interval
ijevery for ),'(c)(c and ),'(c)(c
n,i somefor if 'product another n better tha is product A
j, j,
j, i,
xx
ijevery for ,|)'(c)(c| and ,)(c)'(c
:ionconsiderat into interval ceindifferen take
j, j,
i, i,
j
i
i
cc
c
04/01/2003 32
Constraint Hierarchies
iijijiji
Ccijiji
h
h
CcxcwxC
xcwxC
cc
CH
iij
:),(max),(or
),(),(iserror on satisfacti sconstraint aggregatedthen
c'.than important more is c constraint that means 'Con relation orderingk strict wea a is
sconstraint ofset a is C where
,pair a ishierarchy constraintA
h
04/01/2003 33
Example• Shopping for wipes products using hierarchical constraint
satisfaction approach. Each product is described by the following attributes:
• Cost: cents per sheet• Add-on materials: “baking soda”, “aloe vera”, …;• Strength: measured by pressure(psi) that breaks a sheet;• Dispenser type: “box”, “pop-up”;• Added artificial scent: unscented, natural aloe scented,
natural jasmine scented and chemical perfume scented;• Product purpose: “general purpose”, “diaper change”.
04/01/2003 34
Example—Result
04/01/2003 35
Contributions and Future Research Directions
• Contribution: the product search mechanism is viewed as a satisfaction problem of hierarchically organized constraints over product attributes, thus it is more powerful and flexible than product selection based on a single product taxonomy hierarchy.
• Future research: Purchasing requirement specification or constraint hierarchy elicitation; complete prototype implementation of the HCS approach; actual purchasing/sales transaction based on speech –act theory, illocutionary logic and inter-organizational activity coordination.
04/01/2003 36
A Multiple Attribute Utility Theory Approach to ranking and Selection
John Butler, Douglas J. Morrice and Peter W. Mullarkey
Management Science, Vol. 47, No. 6, June 2001
04/01/2003 37
Summary• Problem: developing a ranking and selection procedure
for making comparison of systems that have multiple performance measures;
• Approach: combining Multiple Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT) and statistical ranking and selection (R&S) using indifference zone;
• Gaps: costing approach is flawed in that accurate cost data may not be available, and it may be difficult to measure performance using costs..
• Advantages: rigorous; close to business practice; simpler to implement; can estimate the number of simulations required; can assess the relative importance of criteria
04/01/2003 38
Gaps• Most of the R&S literature focused on procedures that reduce
the multivariate performance measures to a scalar performances measure problem, but these procedures may have some disadvantages, e.g. accurate cost data may not be available; it maybe difficult to accurately attach a dollar value to intangible variables;
• Current techniques may require a complicated step of estimating a covariance matrix(Gupta & Panchapakesan 1979);
• Previous work doesn’t provide an approach to estimate the number of simulations required to select the best configurations with a high level of probability(Andijani 1998, Kim & Lin 1999).
• Previous work lacks a trade-off mechanism that allows the decision maker to combine disparate performance measures.
04/01/2003 39
Assumptions
• Decision maker’s preferences are accurately represented ( Clemen 1991, Keeney & Raiffa 1976);
• Performance measures that is converted to “utils” can be converted to meaningful unit by choosing an invertible utility function;
• There is a indifference zone for the decision maker on all the performance measures;
04/01/2003 40
General Outline of the Procedure
Construct MAU Model
Run Simulator
Assess Indifference Zone
Simulation Output Vector
Apply MAU Model and Scalar Based R&S Procedures
Sensitivity Analysis on MAU Weights
Assess Utility Functions
Assess Weights
Utility Exchange
04/01/2003 41
s.preferenceon m and j i, attributesbetween n interactio therepresent that constants scaling the
are wi, measurefor weight theis,10 i, measureover functionutility sigle a is ,1(.)0 measures, eperformanc
over variablesrandom of vestor a is )...,( Where)()...()(...
)()()(
)()()()(
ijm
21
2211...123
1
11
i
i
n
nnn
n
i ij ijmmmjjiiijm
jj
n
i ijiiij
n
iiii
wu
XXXXXuXuXuw
XuXuXuw
XuXuwXuwXu
Multilinear Utility Function
04/01/2003 42
Multiplicative MAU Model
.w1- and ,10 Where)()...()(...
)()()(
)()()()(
)](1[)(1
then t,independenutility mutual If
2211...123
1
11
1
i
nnn
n
i ij ijmmmjjiiijm
jj
n
i ijiiij
n
iiii
in
i ii
wXuXuXuw
XuXuXuw
XuXuwXuwXu
XuwwXwu
04/01/2003 43
Additive MAU Model
• If mutual utility additive independent, then
• Example for additive independence:
n
iiii XuwXu
1
)()(
0.5probility with ),(x
0.5probility with ),(x B
0.5probility with ),(x
0.5probility with ),(x
*
*
**
21*
2*
1
2*
1*
21
x
x
x
xA
04/01/2003 44
Single Attribute Utility Function Used
•
• Methods for assigning weights: trade-off method; analytical hierarchy process (AHP).
i. measurefor constants scaling are and andancerisk toler smaker'decision theis where
)( )(
ii
i
RTxiiii
BART
eBAxu ii
04/01/2003 45
Question
• What’s the benefit of using this function?
04/01/2003 46
R&S Experimental Set-up
• Correct Selection (CS): the R&S procedure accurately identifies the configuration with largest expected utility .
• Two stage indifference zone procedure for R&S.
)]([ ][KXuE
10 and ,11 where
)]E[u(X-
)]E[u(X whenever }{
*
*1]-[K
[K]*
*P/K)(
PCSP
04/01/2003 47
Selection of
• A Utility Exchange ApproachTable 1 Alternatives by Measures Matrix for Car Selection
Table 2 Equivalent Hypothetical Cars
*
Alternative Cost Horsepower Harmony 17,000 160 Starburst 17,000 125 Keyo 15,200 100 Palomino 18,500 160
Alternative Cost Horsepower Harmony 17,000 140 Starburst 17,000 140 Keyo 15,200 140 Palomino 18,500 160
04/01/2003 48
Question Again
• Does it mean that the 20 horsepower is worth $1,200?
04/01/2003 49
Selection of
*
ikiik
kk
k
cxux
QQxuux
x
)( such that specified is ' where
))(('
is ' of level computingfor expressionan function,utility r Multilinea for the :1n Propositio •
'1
2
1111
1
function. AMUfor K, , 2, ,1kk,ion configurat and 1 measure standard for the
))(var())(var(
:hold iprelationsh following The :2n Propositio •
22
'11
Q
XuXu KK
04/01/2003 50
Establishing the Indifference Zone
• Curve dividing the indifference and preference zone:
1
1]1[
)(ln1
*1
11]1[1][RT
CE
KK
K
eB
RTCECE
04/01/2003 51
Different for ZoneceIndifferen theofzation Characteri *
04/01/2003 52
• Example:
Different for ZoneceIndifferen theofzation Characteri *
04/01/2003 53
Application of the Procedure—Case Description
• Case example: Land Seismic Survey;• Performance measures: survey cost; survey
duration; utilization of the four crews; • Relationship of the crews:
04/01/2003 54
Application of the Procedure—Results
04/01/2003 55
Application of the Procedure—Results
04/01/2003 56
Application of the Procedure—Sensitivity Analysis to Weight
04/01/2003 57
Contributions and Future Research Directions
• Contribution: provides a formal procedure that can be applied to realistic problems; presents a scalar performance measure that can summarize performance on multiple criteria, including nonlinear preference functions and the relative importance of the measures;
• Future research: combine MAU theory with the work of Chen et al; extend the MAU methodology with Chick and Inoue’s work to include their Bayesian technique and relieve some of the computational burden of all R&S procedure; combine the work in this paper with R&S procedures designed facilitate variance reduction through the use of common random numbers (See Matejcik and Nelson 1995 and Goldman and Nelson 1998).