A Partially Ranked Choice Model for Large-Scale Data-Driven Assortment Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assortment of products carried by a store has a crucial impact on its success. However, finding the right mix of products to attract a large portion of the customers is a challenging task. Several mathematical models have been proposed to optimize assortments. Most of them are based on discrete choice models that represent the buying behavior of the customers. Among them, rank-based choice models have been acknowledged for representing well high-dimensional product substitution effects and, therefore, reflect customer preferences in a reasonably realistic manner. In this work, we extend the concept of (strictly) fully ranked choice models to models with partial ranking that additionally allow for indifference among subsets of products, that is, on which the customer does not have a strict preference. We show that partially ranked choice models are theoretically equivalent to fully ranked choice models. We then propose an embedded column-generation procedure to efficiently estimate partially ranked choice models from historical transaction and assortment data. The subproblems involved can be efficiently solved by using a growing preference tree that represents partially ranked preferences, enabling us to learn preferences and optimize assortments for thousands of products. Computational experiments on artificially generated data and a case study on real industrial retail data suggest that our proposed methods outperform existing algorithms in terms of scalability, prediction accuracy, and quality of the obtained assortments.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".