Paper detail

E-commerce Recommendation with Weighted Expected Utility

Different from shopping at retail stores, consumers on e-commerce platforms usually cannot touch or try products before purchasing, which means that they have to make decisions when they are uncertain about the outcome (e.g., satisfaction level) of purchasing a product. To study people's preferences, economics researchers have proposed the hypothesis of Expected Utility (EU) that models the subject value associated with an individual's choice as the statistical expectations of that individual's valuations of the outcomes of this choice. Despite its success in studies of game theory and decision theory, the effectiveness of EU, however, is mostly unknown in e-commerce recommendation systems. Previous research on e-commerce recommendation interprets the utility of purchase decisions either as a function of the consumed quantity of the product or as the gain of sellers/buyers in the monetary sense. As most consumers just purchase one unit of a product at a time and most alternatives have similar prices, such modeling of purchase utility is likely to be inaccurate in practice. In this paper, we interpret purchase utility as the satisfaction level a consumer gets from a product and propose a recommendation framework using EU to model consumers' behavioral patterns. We assume that consumer estimates the expected utilities of all the alternatives and choose products with maximum expected utility for each purchase. To deal with the potential psychological biases of each consumer, we introduce the usage of Probability Weight Function (PWF) and design our algorithm based on Weighted Expected Utility (WEU). Empirical study on real-world e-commerce datasets shows that our proposed ranking-based recommendation framework achieves statistically significant improvement against both classical Collaborative Filtering/Latent Factor Models and state-of-the-art deep models in top-K recommendation.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.