A trust-aware random walk model for return propensity estimation and consumer anomaly scoring in online shopping

Abstract

In online shopping, most of consumers will not clear their return reasons when submitting return requests (e.g., select the option “other reasons”). Prior literature mostly investigates into the return event at the transaction level, and the underlying force of returns remains untracked. To deal with this problem, we propose a machine learning algorithm named as trust-aware random walk model (TARW). In the proposed model, four patterns of consumers can be identified in terms of return forces: (i) selfish consumers, (ii) honest consumers, (iii) fraud consumers, and (iv) irrelevant consumers. To profile consumers’ return patterns, we capture consumers’ similarities in order preferences and return tendencies separately. Based on consumers’ similarities, we obtain a return pattern trust network by introducing the trust network and collaborative filtering algorithms. Subsequently, we develop two important applications based on the trust network: (i) estimating consumers’ return propensities for product types; (ii) scoring the anomaly for consumers’ returns for one product. Finally, we conduct extensive experiments with the real-world data to validate the model’s effectiveness in predicting and tracing consumers’ returns. With the proposed model, we can help retailers improve the conversion rates of selfish consumers, retain honest consumers, and block fraud consumers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. 1

    Fu Y, Liu G, Papadimitriou S, et al. Fused latent models for assessing product return propensity in online commerce. Decis Support Syst, 2016, 91: 77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Dutta S, Biswas A, Grewal D. Regret from postpurchase discovery of lower market prices: do price refunds help? J Marketing, 2011, 75: 124–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Potdar A, Rogers J. Reason-code based model to forecast product returns. Foresight, 2012, 14: 105–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Wood S L. Remote purchase environments: the influence of return policy leniency on two-stage decision processes. J Marketing Res, 2001, 38: 157–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Ang L, Dubelaar C, Lee B C. To trust or not to trust? A model of internet trust from the customer’s point of view. In: Proceedings of BLED 2001, Bled Austria, 2001. 43

  6. 6

    Zacharia G, Moukas A, Maes P. Collaborative reputation mechanisms for electronic marketplaces. Decis Support Syst, 2000, 29: 371–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Dellarocas C. The digitization of word of mouth: promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Manage Sci, 2003, 49: 1407–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Zhang Y, Liu T, Li R, et al. Evaluation model of buyers’ dynamic reputation in e-commerce. Int J Multimed Ubiquit Eng, 2015, 10: 53–64

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Grace A M, Williams S O. Comparative analysis of neural network and fuzzy logic techniques in credit risk evaluation. Int J Intell Inf Technol, 2016, 12: 47–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Gunn S R. Support vector machines for classification and regression. ISIS Technical Report. 1998

  11. 11

    Lee T S, Chiu C C, Lu C J, et al. Credit scoring using the hybrid neural discriminant technique. Expert Syst Appl, 2002, 23: 245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Jin L P, Dong J. Classification of normal and abnormal ECG records using lead convolutional neural network and rule inference. Sci China Technol Sci, 2017, 60: 078103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Jiang J, Li Y J, Feng Q Y, et al. A multiple user sharing behaviors based approach for fake file detection in P2P environments. Sci China Inf Sci, 2010, 53: 2169–2184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Massa P, Avesani P. Trust-aware collaborative filtering for recommender systems. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems. Berlin: Springer Press, 2004. 492–508

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Sarwar B, Karypis G, Konstan J, et al. Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web. Raleigh: ACM Press, 2001. 285–295

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Shepitsen A, Gemmell J, Mobasher B, et al. Personalized recommendation in social tagging systems using hierarchical clustering. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. Lausanne: ACM Press, 2008. 259–266

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Yang X W, Guo Y, Liu Y. Bayesian-inference-based recommendation in online social networks. IEEE Trans Parall Distrib Syst, 2013, 24: 642–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Qian Y, Peng Z Y, Liang H, et al. A latent topic based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm for web communities. In: Proceedings of 2012 Web Information Systems and Applications Conference. Hainan: IEEE Press, 2012. 241–246

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Chen D E, Ying Y L. A collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm based on bipartite graph. Adv Mater Res, 2013, 756: 3865–3868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Rong H G, Zhou X, Yang C, et al. The rich and the poor: a Markov decision process approach to optimizing taxi driver revenue efficiency. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM). Indianapolis: ACM Press, 2016. 2329–2334

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Yu W. Analysis on trust influencing factors and trust model from multiple perspectives of online Auction. Cent Eur J Phys, 2017, 15: 613–619

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Fouss F, Pirotte A, Renders J, et al. Random-walk computation of similarities between nodes of a graph with application to collaborative recommendation. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 2007, 19: 355–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Haveliwala T H. Topic-sensitive pagerank: a context-sensitive ranking algorithm for web search. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 2003, 15: 784–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Sun J, Qu H, Chakrabarti D, et al. Neighborhood formation and anomaly detection in bipartite graphs. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. Houston: IEEE Press, 2005. 8

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Jamali M, Ester M. Trustwalker: a random walk model for combining trust-based and item-based recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Paris: ACM Press, 2009. 397–406

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Jeh G, Widom J. SimRank: a measure of structural-context similarity. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Edmonton: ACM Press, 2002. 538–543

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Zhang Z, Zeng D D, Abbasi A, et al. A random walk model for item recommendation in social tagging systems. ACM Trans Manage Inf Syst, 2013, 4: 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Alexandridis G, Siolas G, Stafylopatis A. Accuracy versus novelty and diversity in recommender systems: a nonuniform random walk approach. In: Recommendation and Search in Social Networks. Berlin: Springer Press, 2015. 41–57

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Gong J B, Gao X X, Cheng H, et al. Integrating a weighted-average method into the random walk framework to generate individual friend recommendations. Sci China Inf Sci, 2017, 60: 110104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Smith W R. Product differentiation and market segmentation as alternative marketing strategies. J Marketing, 1956, 21: 3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Azzedin F, Maheswaran M. Evolving and managing trust in grid computing systems. In: Proceedings of IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. Winnipeg: IEEE Press, 2002. 1424–1429

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Travers J, Milgram S. The small world problem. Psychol Today, 1967, 1: 61–67

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFB-1004300), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61773199, 71732002), and Philosophy and Social Science Foundation of Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province, China (Grant No. 2017SJB0006).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yanjie Fu or Xiangdong He.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, X., Zhuang, Y., Fu, Y. et al. A trust-aware random walk model for return propensity estimation and consumer anomaly scoring in online shopping. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 62, 52101 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-018-9511-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • machine learning
  • return abuse
  • random walk
  • collaborative filtering
  • return pattern