MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963699115 · doi:10.1109/icdmw.2018.00122

Generating Realistic Sequences of Customer-Level Transactions for Retail Datasets

2018· article· en· W2963699115 on OpenAlexaff
Thang Doan, Neil Veira, Brian Keng

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRecurrent neural networkTask (project management)Database transactionTransaction dataPurchasingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningData miningArtificial neural networkDatabaseMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to better engage with customers, retailers rely on extensive customer and product databases which allows them to better understand customer behaviour and purchasing patterns. This has long been a challenging task as customer modelling is a multi-faceted, noisy and time-dependent problem. The most common way to tackle this problem is indirectly through task-specific supervised learning prediction problems, with relatively little literature on modelling a customer by directly simulating their future transactions. In this paper we propose a method for generating realistic sequences of baskets that a given customer is likely to purchase over a period of time. Customer embedding representations are learned using a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) which takes into account the entire sequence of transaction data. Given the customer state at a specific point in time, a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) is trained to generate a plausible basket of products for the following week. The newly generated basket is then fed back into the RNN to update the customer's state. The GAN is thus used in tandem with the RNN module in a pipeline alternating between basket generation and customer state updating steps. This allows for sampling over a distribution of a customer's future sequence of baskets, which then can be used to gain insight into how to service the customer more effectively. The methodology is empirically shown to produce baskets that appear similar to real baskets and enjoy many common properties, including frequencies of different product types, brands, and prices. Furthermore, the generated data is able to replicate most of the strongest sequential patterns that exist between product types in the real data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207