MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283836917 · doi:10.1287/msom.2022.1128

Online Personalized Assortment Optimization with High-Dimensional Customer Contextual Data

2022· article· en· W4283836917 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing & Service Operations Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRegretScalabilitySet (abstract data type)Relevance (law)Optimization problemCurse of dimensionalityBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationData miningMachine learningAlgorithmDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem definition: Consider an online personalized assortment optimization problem in which customers arrive sequentially and make their decisions (e.g., click an ad, purchase a product) following the multinomial logit choice model with unknown parameters. Utilizing a customer’s personal information that is high-dimensional, the firm selects an assortment tailored for each individual customer’s preference. Academic/practical relevance: High dimensionality of a customer’s contextual information is prevalent in real applications, and it creates tremendous computational challenge in online personalized optimization. Methodology: In this paper, an efficient learning algorithm is developed to tackle the computational complexity issue while maintaining satisfactory performance. The algorithm first applies a random projection for dimension reduction and incorporates an online convex optimization procedure for parameter estimation, thus overcoming the issue of linearly increasing computational requirement as data accumulates. Then, it integrates the upper confidence bound method to balance the exploration and revenue exploitation. Results: The theoretical performance of the algorithm in terms of regret is derived under some plausible sparsity assumption on personal information that is observed in real data, and numerical experiments using both synthetic data and a real data set from Yahoo! show that the algorithm performs very well, having scalability and significant advantage in computational time compared with benchmark methods. Managerial implications: Our findings suggest that practitioners should process high-dimensional sparse customer data with an appropriate feature engineering technique, such as random projection (instead of abandoning the sparse portion) to maximize the effectiveness of online optimization algorithms.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.271 · 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