validation improvement trend

Validation of the Proposed Improvement-trend

Technique

Presented by:Abhishek Srivastava

Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of Alberta

1

Friday, December 11, 2009

Improvement-trend criterion

feedback

× × ×

× ×feedback

time

line fitted using the Ordinary Least Squares

technique

2


Validation of our technique

Hotels in Los Angeles × × ×

× ×feedback

time

feedback

3


Renaissance Hollywood HotelHyatt Regency, Century PlazaVagabond InnElan HotelHollywood City InnHollywood Orchid SuitesSofitel Los AngelesSheraton Universal HotelHoliday Inn Express...Hollywood...Angeleno Hotel

feedback

4


Proposed techniqueRenaissance Hollywood HotelHyatt Regency, Century PlazaVagabond InnElan HotelHollywood City InnHollywood Orchid SuitesSofitel Los AngelesSheraton Universal HotelHoliday Inn Express...Hollywood...Angeleno Hotel

Randomly collectedsmall number of feedback

× × ×

× ×feedback

time

11.2

= 0.833

21.5

= 1.33

20.8

= 2.5

Affinity = Available · {Reliability}!

{Waiting-time}"

Affinityij = Couplingij ·Availablej ·{Reliabilityj}! · {Improvement-trendj}#

{Waiting-timej}"

Transition-rate =Completion-ratei ! Couplingij

Waiting-time =Length of queue

Completion-rate

Improvement-trend = {Slope of fitted line}!{Mean feedback value} 5


Rankings based on proposed technique


1. Sofitel Los Angeles 1.5423 2. Elan Hotel 1.41193. Angeleno Hotel 1.3097 4. Holiday Inn Express...Hollywood... 1.25035. Hollywood City Inn 1.17076. Vagabond Inn 1.1053 7. Sheraton Universal Hotel 1.09318. Renaissance Hollywood Hotel 1.08719. Hollywood Orchid Suites 0.973910. Hyatt Regency, Century Plaza 0.8815

Ranked based oncalculated

Improvement-trend

6


Calculation of ‘actual’ improvement


Large amount of feedback

7



Large amount of feedback

For each hotel Monthly feedbackaverage

8


9


Feedback average

October 2009Hotels ranked

based on feedback

Hotels rankedbased on feedback



Rankings based on proposed feedback

September 2009

December 2008

July 2008

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.


10

July - October 2009Ranking

March - June 2009Ranking

Oct. `08 - June `09Ranking


For each hotel:

October 2009

September 2009

December 2008

July 2008

.

.

.

.

.

.

August 2009

July 2009 Rank

Rank

Rank

RankAverage rank


‘Rank improvement’

11


March - June 2009Ranking

Oct. `08 - June `09Ranking

July - October 2008Ranking R1

R2

R3

R4

Rank improvement =(R1-R2)+ (R2-R3)+ (R3-R4)

For each hotel:


Rankings based on ‘Rank improvement’

12


Ranked based onRank improvement

Vagabond Inn +3Elan Hotel +2.5Sofitel Los Angeles +1.75Holiday Inn Express...Hollywood... +1.25Angeleno Hotel - 0.5Hollywood Orchid Suites - 0.75Hyatt Regency, Century Plaza - 0.75Hollywood City Inn - 1.25Sheraton Universal Hotel - 2Renaissance Hollywood Hotel - 3.25


Ranking comparison

13

1. Sofitel Los Angeles 2. Elan Hotel 3. Angeleno Hotel 4. Holiday Inn Express...Hollywood... 5. Hollywood City Inn 6. Vagabond Inn 7. Sheraton Universal Hotel 8. Renaissance Hollywood Hotel 9. Hollywood Orchid Suites 10. Hyatt Regency, Century Plaza

1. Vagabond Inn 2. Elan Hotel 3. Sofitel Los Angeles 4. Holiday Inn Express...Hollywood... 5. Angeleno Hotel 6. Hollywood Orchid Suites 6. Hyatt Regency, Century Plaza 8. Hollywood City Inn 9. Sheraton Universal Hotel 10. Renaissance Hollywood Hotel

Proposed technique(small feedback number)

Based on ‘rank improvement’(large feedback number)

Average ‘Manhattan’ distance = 2.3


Thank you!

14


validation improvement trend

Travel