Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Complexity
Volume 2018 (2018), Article ID 2753638, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2753638
Research Article

A Network-Based Approach to Modeling and Predicting Product Coconsideration Relations

1Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
2Department of Industrial Engineering & Management Sciences and Department of Management & Organizations and Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
3Media, Technology, and Society, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
4Global Data Insight & Analytics, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, USA
5Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Wei Chen; ude.nretsewhtron@nehciew

Received 23 September 2017; Accepted 18 December 2017; Published 28 January 2018

Academic Editor: Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes

Copyright © 2018 Zhenghui Sha et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. G. Robins, T. Snijders, P. Wang, M. Handcock, and P. Pattison, “Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks,” Social Networks, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 192–215, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. M. Wang, W. Chen, Y. Huang, N. S. Contractor, and Y. Fu, “A Multidimensional Network Approach for Modeling Customer-Product Relations in Engineering Design,” in Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  3. P. Wang, G. Robins, P. Pattison, and E. Lazega, “Exponential random graph models for multilevel networks,” Social Networks, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 96–115, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. E. Sosa, S. D. Eppinger, and C. M. Rowles, “A network approach to define modularity of components in complex products,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 129, no. 11, pp. 1118–1129, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. M. Sosa, J. Mihm, and T. Browning, “Degree distribution and quality in complex engineered systems,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 133, no. 10, Article ID 101008, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. E. Byler, “Cultivating the growth of complex systems using emergent behaviours of engineering processes,” in Proceedings of the in International conference on complex systems: control and modeling, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2000.
  7. N. Contractor, P. R. Monge, and P. Leonardi, “Multidimensional networks and the dynamics of sociomateriality: Bringing technology inside the network,” International Journal of Communication, vol. 5, pp. 682–720, 2011. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. P. Cormier, E. Devendorf, and K. Lewis, “Optimal process architectures for distributed design using a social network model,” in Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE 2012, pp. 485–495, USA, August 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. W. Chen, C. Hoyle, and H. J. Wassenaar, “Decision-based design: Integrating consumer preferences into engineering design,” Decision-Based Design: Integrating Consumer Preferences into Engineering Design, pp. 1–357, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. J. J. Michalek, F. M. Feinberg, and P. Y. Papalambros, “Linking marketing and engineering product design decisions via analytical target cascading,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 42–62, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. Z. Sha, K. Moolchandani, J. H. Panchal, and D. A. DeLaurentis, “Modeling Airlines’ Decisions on City-Pair Route Selection Using Discrete Choice Models,” Journal of Air Transportation, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 63–73, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. Z. Sha and J. H. Panchal, “Estimating local decision-making behavior in complex evolutionary systems,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 136, no. 6, Article ID 061003, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. M. Wang and W. Chen, “A data-driven network analysis approach to predicting customer choice sets for choice modeling in engineering design,” Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 137, no. 7, Article ID 71409, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. Z. Sha and J. H. Panchal, “Estimating linking preferences and behaviors of autonomous systems in the internet using a discrete choice model,” in Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC 2014, pp. 1591–1597, usa, October 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. J. Hauser, M. Ding, and S. P. Gaskin, “Non-compensatory (and compensatory) models of consideration-set decisions,” in Proceedings of the in 2009 Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, Sequin WA, 2009.
  16. A. D. Shocker, M. Ben-Akiva, B. Boccara, and P. Nedungadi, “Consideration set influences on consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions,” Marketing Letters, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 181–197, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. J. R. Hauser and B. Wernerfelt, “An Evaluation Cost Model of Consideration Sets,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 16, no. 4, p. 393, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  18. P. Nedungadi, “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 263, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  19. R. K. Srivastava, M. I. Alpert, and A. D. Shocker, “A Customer-Oriented Approach for Determining Market Structures,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 48, no. 2, p. 32, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  20. S. Frederick, Automated choice heuristics.
  21. W. Shao, Consumer Decision-Making: An Empirical Exploration of Multi-Phased Decision Processes, Griffith University Australia, 2006.
  22. M. Yee, E. Dahan, J. R. Hauser, and J. Orlin, “Greedoid-based noncompensatory inference,” Marketing Science, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 532–549, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. J. R. Hauser, O. Toubia, T. Evgeniou, R. Befurt, and D. Dzyabura, “Disjunctions of conjunctions, cognitive simplicity, and consideration sets,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 485–496, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. T. J. Gilbride and G. M. Allenby, “Estimating heterogeneous EBA and economic screening rule choice models,” Marketing Science, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 494–509, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. R. L. Andrews and T. C. Srinivasan, “Studying consideration effects in empirical choice models using scanner panel data,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 32, no. 1, p. 30, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  26. J. Chiang, S. Chib, and C. Narasimhan, “Markov chain Monte Carlo and models of consideration set and parameter heterogeneity,” Journal of Econometrics, vol. 89, no. 1-2, pp. 223–248, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. T. Erdem and J. Swait, “Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 191–198, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. J. Swait, “A non-compensatory choice model incorporating attribute cutoffs,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 903–928, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. T. J. Gilbride and G. M. Allenby, “A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules,” Marketing Science, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 391–406, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. E. Boros, P. L. Hammer, T. Ibaraki, A. Kogan, E. Mayoraz, and I. Muchnik, “An implementation of logical analysis of data,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 292–306, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. M. Ding, “An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 214–223, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. Z. Sha, V. Saeger, M. Wang, Y. Fu, and W. Chen, “Analyzing Customer Preference to Product Optional Features in Supporting Product Configuration,” SAE International Journal of Materials and Manufacturing, vol. 10, no. 3, 2017. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  33. K. Eliaz and R. Spiegler, “Consideration sets and competitive marketing,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 235–262, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  34. P. Resnick and H. R. Varian, “Recommender systems,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 56–58, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. G. Adomavicius and A. Tuzhilin, “Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 734–749, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. T. Zhoua, Z. Kuscsik, J. Liu, M. Medo, J. R. Wakeling, and Y. Zhang, “Solving the apparent diversity-accuracy dilemma of recommender systems,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 10, pp. 4511–4515, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. F. Yu, A. Zeng, S. Gillard, and M. Medo, “Network-based recommendation algorithms: a review,” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, vol. 452, pp. 192–208, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. L. Lü, M. Medo, C. H. Yeung, Y. Zhang, Z. Zhang, and T. Zhou, “Recommender systems,” Physics Reports, vol. 519, no. 1, pp. 1–49, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. T. Zhou, J. Ren, M. Medo, and Y. Zhang, “Bipartite network projection and personal recommendation,” Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, vol. 76, no. 4, Article ID 046115, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. M. J. Pazzani and D. Billsus, “Content-based recommendation systems,” in The Adaptive Web: Methods and Strategies of Web Personalization, P. Brusilovsky, A. Kobsa, and., and W. Nejdl, Eds., pp. 325–341, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  41. D. M. Blei, A. Y. Ng, and M. I. Jordan, “Latent Dirichlet allocation,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 3, no. 4-5, pp. 993–1022, 2003. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. A. Fiasconaro, M. Tumminello, V. Nicosia, V. Latora, and R. N. Mantegna, “Hybrid recommendation methods in complex networks,” Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, vol. 92, no. 1, Article ID 012811, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. J. S. Fu et al., “Modeling Customer Choice Preferences in Engineering Design Using Bipartite Network Analysis,” in Proceedings of the in 2017 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, ASME, Cleveland, OH, USA, 2017.
  44. M. Wang, Z. Sha, Y. Huang, N. Contractor, Y. Fu, and W. Chen, “Forecasting technological impacts on customers' co-consideration behaviors: A data-driven network analysis approach,” in Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, IDETC/CIE 2016, USA, August 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. G. Robins, P. Pattison, Y. Kalish, and D. Lusher, “An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks,” Social Networks, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 173–191, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. M. Shumate and E. T. Palazzolo, “Exponential random graph (p*) models as a method for social network analysis in communication research,” Communication Methods and Measures, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 341–371, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. S. Tufféry, “Data Mining and Statistics for Decision Making,” Data Mining and Statistics for Decision Making, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. K. W. Church and P. Hanks, “Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography,” Computational linguistics, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 22–29, 1990. View at Google Scholar
  49. O. Frank and D. Strauss, “Markov graphs,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 81, no. 395, pp. 832–842, 1986. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  50. S. Wasserman and P. Pattison, “Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to markov graphs and p,” Psychometrika, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 401–425, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, and J. M. Cook, “Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 27, pp. 415–444, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. M. Greenacre, Correspondence analysis in practice, CRC press, 2017.
  53. M. Wang et al., “A Network Approach for Understanding and Analyzing Product Co-Consideration Relations in Engineering Design,” in Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference, 2016.
  54. D. R. Hunter, “Curved exponential family models for social networks,” Social Networks, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 216–230, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. J. Shore and B. Lubin, “Spectral goodness of fit for network models,” Social Networks, vol. 43, pp. 16–27, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. D. M. Powers, Evaluation: from precision, recall and F-measure to ROC, informedness, markedness and correlation, 2011.
  57. T. Saito and M. Rehmsmeier, “The precision-recall plot is more informative than the ROC plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets,” PLoS ONE, vol. 10, no. 3, Article ID e0118432, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  58. Z. Sha et al., “Modeling Product Co-Consideration Relations: A Comparative Study of Two Network Models,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED17, 2017.