Contact Center Assignment Validation Using Weighted Historical Outcomes

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing contact center assignment strategies, such as FIFO, PBR, and BP, face challenges in validating models due to overfitting, especially when representative historical data is scarce, leading to incorrect validation results and inefficient use of data.

Innovation Solution

A method involving in-sample validation using training and validation weights to determine weighted outcomes, allowing for the selection of an optimal assignment strategy based on expected performances, and optionally adjusting strategies based on real-time conditions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If in-sample validation is used to validate assignment strategy models, then validation can be performed with available historical data, but incorrect validation results occur due to overfitting detection failure

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation result accuracyVSAvoidoverfitting detection capability
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the historical data into distinct training set and validation set portions. The training set is used to train candidate assignment strategy models, while the validation set is used to validate them. This segmentation prevents overfitting by ensuring that models are tested on data they have not seen during training, thereby enabling accurate detection of overfitting and improving validation result accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Measurement precision

If representative historical data is used for model training and validation, then validation accuracy improves, but data scarcity becomes more pronounced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation accuracyVSAvoidavailable historical data
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies parameter changes by using different weighting schemes for training and validation. Specifically, it uses a first weighting scheme for training the models and a second weighting scheme for validating them. This allows the system to maximize the utility of limited representative historical data by optimizing how it is distributed and weighted across training and validation processes, thereby improving validation accuracy without requiring additional data.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Measurement precision

If multiple candidate models are trained and validated to select the preferred model, then model selection accuracy improves, but computational complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemodel selection accuracyVSAvoidmodel validation process complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by pre-establishing the validation set and weighting schemes before model training begins. The validation set is prepared in advance from historical data, and the weighting schemes are defined beforehand. This preliminary preparation streamlines the subsequent model training and validation process, allowing multiple candidate models to be evaluated efficiently without excessive computational complexity, thereby maintaining high model selection accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS20260067404A1Method, system and article of manufacture for validating assignment strategy in contact center system
Publication Date: 2026.03.05 ISBEI LTD
  • US20260067404A1 patent drawing
  • US20260067404A1 patent drawing
  • US20260067404A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Provided is a method for validating an assignment strategy in a contact center system, including: receiving a set of historical pairing outcomes; determining a set of training weights and a set of validation weights; assigning each record from the set of historical pairing outcomes a training weight from the set of training weights and a validation weight from the set of validation weights; determining a set of training weighted outcomes based on the set of historical pairing outcomes and the set of training weights; determining a set of validation weighted outcomes based on the set of historical pairing outcomes and the set of validation weight; determining one or more assignment strategies based on the set of training weighted outcomes; calculating expected performances for the one or more assignment strategies based on the set of validation weighted outcomes; and selecting an assignment strategy based on the expected performances.