The present application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 of Indian Application No. 1269/CHE/2010, filed May 6, 2010, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
The present invention relates to the influence based structural analysis in general, and more particularly, automated analysis of structural representations. Still more particularly, the present invention relates to a system and method for automatic influence based structural analysis of a model graph associated with a university.
An educational institution (also referred as university) comprises of a variety of entities: students, faculty members, departments, divisions, labs, libraries, special interest groups, etc. University portals provide information about the universities and act as a window to the external world. A typical portal of a university provides information related to (a) Goals, Objectives, Historical information, and Significant milestones, of the university; (b) Profile of the Labs, Departments, and Divisions; (c) Profile of the Faculty members; (d) Significant Achievements; (e) Admission Procedures; (f) Information for Students; (g) Library; (h) On- and Off-Campus Facilities; (i) Research; (j) External Collaborations; (k) Information for Collaborators; (l) News and Events; (m) Alumni; and (n) Information Resources. Prospective students, candidates for exploring opportunities within the university, and funding agencies look towards this kind of portal to obtain information about and assess the university. While there are both objective and subjective measures for the assessment, the visitors to the portals would be more than satisfied if some information about these assessments is provide as part of the portals. For example, the students use this assessment information as part of the university portal to get a better understanding of the university they are exploring to enroll. Similarly, a funding agency gets a better picture of the university that they are planning to fund.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,162,431 to Guerra; Anthony J. (Hartsdale, N.Y.) for “Educational institution selection system and method” (issued on Jan. 9, 2007 and assigned to Turning Point for Life, Inc. (Hartsdale, N.Y.)) describes a system, method, and computer program product for selecting an educational institution, including determining selection criteria for an educational institution, including a location of the educational institution, a type and size of the educational institution, and an admission selectivity of the educational institution; and generating a list of one or more recommended schools satisfying the selection criteria, wherein the recommended schools satisfy predetermined freshman retention rates and graduation rates.
U.S. Pat. App. 20060265237 titled “System and method for ranking academic programs” by Martin; Lawrence B.; (Stony Brook, N.Y.) ; Olejniczak; Anthony J.; (Leipzig, Del.) filed on Mar. 27, 2006 describes a computer-implemented method for ranking a plurality of academic programs includes receiving a plurality of records corresponding to the plurality of academic programs, respectively, combining elements of the plurality of records to determine respective z-scores according to a predetermined metric, and ranking the plurality of academic programs according to the respective z-scores.
“Operators for Propagating Trust and their Evaluation in Social Networks” by Hang; Chung-Wei, Wang; Yonghong, and Singh, Munindar (appeared in International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems—Volume 2 (2009)) describes an algebraic approach for the propagation of trust in a multiagent system.
“Stability of Graphs” by Demir; Bunyamin, Deniz; Ali, and Kocak; Sahin (appeared in The Electronic Journal of Combinatorics Vol. 16, No. 6 (2009)) describes a notion of graph stability to establish equivalence between two positively weighted graphs.
“Max-product for maximum weight matching: convergence, correctness and LP duality” by Bayati; Mohsen, Shah; Devavrat, and Sharma; Mayank (appeared in IEEE transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 54, No. 3, (2008)) describes, max-product “belief propagation”, an iterative, message-passing algorithm for finding the maximum a posteriori assignment of a discrete probability distribution specified by a graphical model.
The known systems do not address the issue of systematically utilizing the assessment at the elemental level and inter-element influences to assess an educational institution at various aggregated component levels. The present invention provides with a system and method for influence based structural analysis of an educational institute.
The primary objective of the invention is to assess an educational institute at elemental and component level.
One aspects of the present invention is to obtain a university model graph of an educational institute that provides the structural representation of the educational institution.
Another aspect of the invention is to capture and utilize the influences at elemental level between elements of the university model graph.
Yet another aspect of the invention is to compute the assessment at elemental levels.
Another aspect of the invention is to propagate the elemental influences to assess at multiple aggregated component levels.
Yet another aspect of the invention is to define the university model graph as comprising of multiple nodes representing the educational institution at elemental and component levels.
Another aspect of the invention is to define the assessment at elemental levels as base score of the nodes associated with the university model graph.
Yet another aspect of the invention is to compute the best possible score called as peak score associated with the nodes of the university model graph.
In a preferred embodiment the present invention provides a system for structural analysis of a university to determine a plurality of assessments of said university at a plurality of levels, wherein said university comprises of a plurality of entities and said plurality of levels comprises of an element level and a component level, said system comprises:
means for obtaining of a university model graph of said university, wherein said university model graph comprises of a plurality of abstract nodes, a plurality of nodes, a plurality of abstract edges, and a plurality of edges, with each abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes corresponding to an entity of said plurality of entities and each abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes is associated with a model of a plurality of models, and a node of said plurality of nodes is connected to an abstract node of said plurality of abstract nodes through an abstract edge of said plurality of abstract edges, wherein said node represents an instantiation of an entity associated with said abstract node and said node is associated with an instantiated model, a base score, a present score, and a peak score, wherein said instantiated model is based on a model associated with said abstract node, and said base score is computed based on said instantiated model and is a value between 0 and 1, and a source node of said plurality of nodes is connected to a destination node of said plurality of nodes by a directed edge of said plurality of edges and said directed edge is associated with an influence factor, wherein said influence factor is a value between −1 and +1; (Refer to
means for constructing a plurality of edge chains based on said university model graph;
means for performing of epsilon propagation based on said university model graph and said plurality of edge chains;
means for performing of core iteration based on said epsilon propagation and said plurality of edge chains;
means for determining of a characteristic value of a plurality of characteristic values based on said plurality of edge chains;
means for computing of a plurality of peak scores associated with said plurality of nodes of said university model graph based on said plurality of characteristic values; and
means for determining of said plurality of assessments based on said plurality of peak scores. (BASED ON
a provides a partial list of entities of a university.
a provides an illustrative UMG.
b provides a brief description of the illustrative UMG.
a provides additional information related to the approach for UMG traversal and core iteration.
a provides an assessment of an EI based on a UMG.
b provides an approach for EI assessment.
a provides a portion of illustrative Base Scores.
b provides a portion of an illustrative Influence Matrix.
c depicts illustrative assessment based on Peak Score Computation.
d depicts additional results related to illustrative assessment based on Peak Score Computation.
a depicts a partial list of entities of a university. Note that a deep domain analysis would uncover several more entities and also their relationship with the other entities (180). For example, RESEARCH STUDENT is a STUDENT who is a part of a DEPARTMENT and works with a FACULTY MEMBER in a LABORATORY using some EQUIPMENT, the DEPARTMENT LIBRARY, and the LIBRARY.
1. There are two kinds of nodes: Abstract node and Node; Abstract node represents an entity while Node represents an instance of an entity;
2. Each Abstract node of the UMG is associated with an Entity and a Model related to the Entity;
3. Each node of the UMG stands for an instance of an entity of EI domain;
4. Each node is associated with an entity-specific instantiated model and a node score that is a value between 0 and 1 is based on the entity-specific instantiated model; This score is called as Base Score;
5. Each node has a dotted connection with the corresponding abstract node from where the instantiated model is derived; This edge or link is called abstract edge or abstract link and each abstract edge (undirected) connects a node and an abstract node;
6. Each edge is directed from a source node to a destination node; That is, each edge or link connects a directed edge and connects two nodes of the UMG;
7. The weight associated with a directed edge indicates the Nature and Quantum of influence of the source node on the destination node and is a value between −1 and +1; This weight is called as Influence Factor;
8. Only edges that are above a lower threshold get represented;
9. Typically, the connectivity between a pair of nodes is in pairs; however, these pairs of directed edges are asymmetrical from the influence factor point of view.
More particularly, there are several instances of each of the entities of the EI domain and the UMG captures the inter-relationship among the instance of these entities. Please note that in the sequel edge and link are used interchangeably.
a depicts an Illustrative UMG. The illustrative UMG (220) has several nodes: an abstract node (225) has a dotted link (abstract link) (230) with multiple nodes of the UMG and is associated with a pair: <E0, M0> wherein E0 is the entity under consideration and M0 is the associated model. The corresponding multiple nodes (235) of the UMG that are connected by a dotted link are the entity instances (nodes) and are also associated with a pair: <E00, M00> wherein E00 is an instance of E0 and M00 is an entity-specific instantiated model derived from M0. Further, the entity instance node is also associated with a node score called as base score as depicted. As part of the UMG, entity instances are connected by a directed link to indicate the influence factors. For example, the entity instance E00 and the entity instance E12 are connected by a pair of directed links (245): the link from E00 to E12 is with an influence factor of 0.8 and the link from E12 to E00 is with an influence factor of 0.15. However, note that not all the links need to be in pairs: observe this in the link between E25 and E23 wherein only the entity instance E25 influences E23. Also, observe a negative influence between E25 and E21 (255).
b provides a brief description of the illustrative UMG. The elaboration (275) includes providing of the various key aspects of the UMG and an illustrative description of the entities. For example, the following entities are involved: DEPARTMENT, CS DEPARTMENT, FACULTY MEMBER, and STUDENT.
1. Consider two instances of STUDENT entity; the students associated with these two instances form a project team to work on a term project. The Score associated with Student 1 is somewhat influenced by the Base Score associated with Student 2 and vice versa.
2. Student 3 is associated with Professor 1 and Professor 1 is a noble laureate. And hence, the Base Score associated with Professor 1 would have a strong influence on the score associated with Student 3.
3. Student 4 is a member of a top-ranked university basket ball team and hence, the Base Score of the basket ball team would have an influence on the score associated with Student 4.
4. Department D1 is rich with funds and is very aggressive; Hence, the Base Score associated with D1 has an influence on the score associated with each of the faculty members of D1. Similarly, the Base Score associated with each of the faculty members of D1 would have an influence on the score associated with D1.
5. University U is a top-ranked school and hence each of the students who enroll into the university U would have their score influenced by the Base Score associated with U.
6. Faculty member F1 of Department D1 won a grant of $10 M from a federal agency; and this would have positive influence on the score associated with D1.
7. Student 7 is academically not strong and his on-campus behavior is below the expectations; This would have a negative influence on the score associated with students who are directly or indirectly associated with Student 7.
Observation 1: Given any two entities part of a UMG, there is a possibility that two interacting entities influence each other. However, the influences are not always symmetrical—that is, the nature and quantum of influence Entity 1 has on Entity 2 may not be the same as the Nature and Quantum of influence Entity 2 has on Entity 1.
Observation 2: Given a UMG, a directed graph, the two entities that directly influence each other are neighbors. However, because of the connectivity, there is an indirect influence as well on an entity due to non-neighbor entities.
Observation 3: To begin with, the nodes of the UMG are associated with Base Scores; The notion of influence propagation is to compute Peak Score—the overall influence of the entities, either directly or indirectly, on an entity under consideration. As two entities mutually influence each other, different directed traversals lead to different Peak Score computations.
Observation 4: The notion of stability is to ensure that each of the nodes get their “best” Peak Score; the objective is to maximize the Peak Scores of all of the nodes.
Observation 5: Epsilon Propagation—In order to achieve Observation 4, it is suggested to perform small incremental (called, Epsilon factor) influence propagations in an iterative approach so that overall influences are addressed in a smoothed out manner.
Observation 6: Maximization of peak scores—Peak scores are computed across several multiple iterations so as to determine the best possible peak scores.
1. UMG is a directed graph;
2. Edge based traversal—Traverse UMG to cover all the directed edges; Each edge is traversed exactly once;
3. Constructing an ECS:
ECS is an edge chain set and is a set of edge chains; Multiple approaches exist for designing means to construct an ECS.
4. Epsilon Propagation
Following steps can be carried out with the help of means for performing Epsilon Propagation:
a provides additional steps related to UMG Traversal and Core Iteration.
5. Means for performing Core Iteration carry out the following steps:
6. Means for determining a Characteristic Value of ECS perform the following steps:
Given a UMG, the objective is to determine the peak score associated with each of the nodes and this process is called as UMG optimization.
Step 1: Given UMG
Step 2: Construct a population P ECSs={ECS1, ECS2, . . . , ECSp}
Step 3: For each ECS of ECSs
Step 3a: Perform Core Iteration;
Step 3b: Compute Characteristic Value;
Step 4: Arrange ECSs based on the Characteristic Value;
Step 5: If the number of iterations exceed a predefined threshold or successive Characteristic values of the top ranked ECS are within a pre-defined threshold,
Step 5: Select top P/2 ECSs as Parent ECSs and
Step 6: For each ECS in Parent ECSs
Step 6a: Define ECS1 as follows: Let ECS1=ECS;
Step 6b: Let K1 be the number of ECs in ECS1;
Step 6c: Generate R1 random numbers without duplicates and within K1;
Step 6d: For each random number R of R1
Step 6d1: Select the EC associated with R;
Step 6d2: Let K2 be the number of edges in EC;
Step 6d3: Generate R2 random numbers without duplicates and within K2 and R2 is even;
Step 6d4: For each pair of random numbers RE1 and RE2 of R2
Step 6d41: Swap edges RE1 and RE2 in EC;
Step 6d5: Make the modified EC part of ECS1 replacing the original EC;
Step 6e: Make ECS1 part of Offspring ECSs;
Step 7: Make ECSs based on Parent ECSs and Offspring ECSs
Step 8: Go to Step 3
Step 9: END
a provides an assessment of an EI based on a UMG. The structural analysis of an EI (or a university) based on a UMG involves the following steps (630):
Step 1: Obtain an UMG associated with an EI;
Step 2: Compute Peak scores based on an optimized UMG;
Step 3: Based on the UMG associated with the computed peak scores, assess the various entities associated with the EI;
Step 4: END
b provides an approach for EI assessment. The assessment of EI at various levels is based on the computed peak scores that are associated with the various nodes of the university model graph. A high level description of the approach is provided below.
Step 1: Given—UMG with associated Peak Scores;
Step 2: Obtain an Entity E;
Step 3: To assess EI at E level:
Step 3a: Obtain all instantiated entities associated with E as IESet;
Step 3b: For each IE in IESet
Step 3b1: Obtain the associated peak score based on UMG;
Step 3c: Compute the assessment at E level based on the set of peak scores associated with IESet;
Step 4: Obtain an instantiated entity IE;
Step 5: To assess EI at IE level
Step 5a: Obtain the peak score P associated with IE based on UMG;
Step 5b: Obtain the entity E associated with IE;
Step 5c: Obtain all instantiated entities associated with E as IESet;
Step 5d: Obtain a set of peak scores, SP, associated with the instantiated entities of IESet based on UMG;
Step 5e: Assess at IE level based on P and SP;
Step 6: END
Give such a UMG,
And, finally,
Thus, a system and method for influence based structural analysis of a university is disclosed. Although the present invention has been described particularly with reference to the figures, it will be apparent to one of the ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may appear in any number of systems that perform influence based structural analysis. It is further contemplated that many changes and modifications may be made by one of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1269/CHE/2010 | May 2010 | IN | national |