Decision Logic Graph Comparison via Subgraph Segmentation
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing methods for representing and comparing decision logic using graphs, such as decision trees, DAGs, and EDAGs, face challenges in efficiently analyzing and visualizing complex decision processes, particularly when dealing with hundreds of variables leading to numerous possible outcomes, making it difficult to display and analyze these structures effectively.
Innovation Solution
The techniques involve comparing strategies by identifying subsets of linked nodes in decision logic graphs, using operations like graph intersection, subtraction, and union to determine equivalence and visualize differences, and providing a user interface for displaying these comparisons, allowing for the selection and visualization of action graphs and highlighting differences.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Adaptability or versatility
If decision trees or DAGs are used to represent complex decision logic involving hundreds of variables, then the decision logic can be comprehensively represented, but the number of nodes increases making it difficult to display and analyze
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the complex decision logic graph into multiple subgraphs, each representing a portion of the overall decision logic. This segmentation allows the system to manage and display hundreds of variables by breaking them into smaller, more manageable units that can be individually analyzed and visualized without overwhelming the user interface.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent introduces a new dimension for organizing decision logic by creating a hierarchical structure where subgraphs are arranged in levels. This dimensional organization transforms the flat, overwhelming graph into a multi-level structure that can be navigated and analyzed systematically, reducing the perceived complexity while maintaining comprehensive representation.
2Reliability
If the number of nodes in decision trees is increased to cover hundreds of variables, then more complete decision coverage is achieved, but the difficulty of displaying and analyzing the structure increases
Solution Approach 1:
By dividing the complete decision logic into segmented subgraphs, the system maintains comprehensive decision coverage while reducing analysis difficulty. Each subgraph can be independently analyzed, and the segmentation allows users to focus on specific portions of the decision logic without being overwhelmed by the entire structure.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent enables analysis of partial decision logic through subgraphs, allowing users to examine specific portions of the decision coverage without needing to analyze the entire graph. This partial action approach makes it feasible to detect and measure decision logic properties in manageable units while still ensuring complete coverage when all subgraphs are considered together.
3Adaptability or versatility
If complete decision logic is represented with all possible outcomes, then comprehensive decision coverage is achieved, but the visualization becomes difficult to manage
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the complete decision logic visualization into multiple subgraphs, each handling a portion of the possible outcomes. This segmentation makes visualization management easier by allowing users to navigate and interact with smaller, organized units rather than a single overwhelming graph, while still representing all possible outcomes across the complete set of subgraphs.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent organizes subgraphs in a multi-dimensional hierarchical structure with levels and positions, providing an additional organizational dimension for managing the visualization. This dimensional arrangement allows comprehensive decision outcome coverage to be presented in an organized, navigable format that is easier to manage and interpret than a flat, unstructured graph.
Data Source
AI summary
Techniques are described for logically comparing strategies. In one aspect the strategies can be compared by receiving a request to compare a first strategy to a second strategy, the first strategy graphically represented by a first set of linked nodes, the second strategy graphically represented by a second set of linked nodes, each set of linked nodes linking a root node to at least one action node; identifying a subset of linked nodes from at least one of the first set of linked nodes and the second set of linked nodes based on an equivalence of a first subset of the first set of linked nodes to a second subset of the second set of linked nodes; and, providing a visual depiction of the identified subset of the linked nodes to a user, the visual depiction corresponding to the equivalence of the first subset to the second subset.