Fuzzy matching of product names

Question

I need to automatically match product names (cameras, laptops, tv-s etc) that come from different sources to a canonical name in the database.

For example "Canon PowerShot a20IS", "NEW powershot A20 IS from Canon" and "Digital Camera Canon PS A20IS" should all match "Canon PowerShot A20 IS". I've worked with levenshtein distance with some added heuristics (removing obvious common words, assigning higher cost to number changes etc), which works to some extent, but not well enough unfortunately.

The main problem is that even single-letter changes in relevant keywords can make a huge difference, but it's not easy to detect which are the relevant keywords. Consider for example three product names:
Lenovo T400
Lenovo R400
New Lenovo T-400, Core 2 Duo
The first two are ridiculously similar strings by any standard (ok, soundex might help to disinguish the T and R in this case, but the names might as well be 400T and 400R), the first and the third are quite far from each other as strings, but are the same product.

Obviously, the matching algorithm cannot be a 100% precise, my goal is to automatically match around 80% of the names with a high confidence.

Any ideas or references is much appreciated

Answer 1

You might want to create logic that ignores the letter/number combination of model numbers (since they're nigh always extremely similar).

Answer 2

Spell checking algorithms come to mind.

Although I could not find a good sample implementation, I believe you can modify a basic spell checking algorithm to comes up with satisfactory results. i.e. working with words as a unit instead of a character.

The bits and pieces left in my memory:

1. Strip out all common words (a, an, the, new). What is "common" depends on context.
2. Take the first letter of each word and its length and make that an word key.
3. When a suspect word comes up, looks for words with the same or similar word key.

It might not solve your problems directly... but you say you were looking for ideas, right?

:-)

Answer 3

I think this will boil down to distinguishing key words such as Lenovo from chaff such as New.

I would run some analysis over the database of names to identify key words. You could use code similar to that used to generate a word cloud.

Then I would hand-edit the list to remove anything obviously chaff, like maybe New is actually common but not key.

Then you will have a list of key words that can be used to help identify similarities. You would associate the "raw" name with its keywords, and use those keywords when comparing two or more raw names for similarities (literally, percentage of shared keywords).

Not a perfect solution by any stretch, but I don't think you are expecting one?

Answer 4

Not having any experience with this type of problem, but I think a very naive implementation would be to tokenize the search term, and search for matches that happen to contain any of the tokens.

"Canon PowerShot A20 IS", for example, tokenizes into:

• Canon
• Powershot
• A20
• IS

which would match each of the other items you want to show up in the results. Of course, this strategy will likely produce a whole lot of false matches as well.

Another strategy would be to store "keywords" with each item, such as "camera", "canon", "digital camera", and searching based on items that have matching keywords. In addition, if you stored other attributes such as Maker, Brand, etc., you could search on each of these.

Answer 5

edg's answer is in the right direction, I think - you need to distinguish key words from fluff.

Context matters. To take your example, Core 2 Duo is fluff when looking at two instances of a T400, but not when looking at a a CPU OEM package.

If you can mark in your database which parts of the canonical form of a product name are more important and must appear in one form or another to identify a product, you should do that. Maybe through the use of some sort of semantic markup? Can you afford to have a human mark up the database?

You can try to define equivalency classes for things like "T-400", "T400", "T 400" etc. Maybe a set of rules that say "numbers bind more strongly than letters attached to those numbers."

Breaking down into cases based on manufacturer, model number, etc. might be a good approach. I would recommend that you look at techniques for term spotting to try and accomplish that: http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/9780262100854

Designing everything in a flexible framework that's mostly rule driven, where the rules can be modified based on your needs and emerging bad patterns (read: things that break your algorithm) would be a good idea, as well. This way you'd be able to improve the system's performance based on real world data.

Answer 6

That is exactly the problem I'm working on in my spare time. What I came up with is: based on keywords narrow down the scope of search:

in this case you could have some hierarchy:

type --> company --> model

so that you'd match "Digital Camera" for a type

"Canon" for company and there you'd be left with much narrower scope to search.

You could work this down even further by introducing product lines etc. But the main point is, this probably has to be done iteratively.

Answer 7

You might be able to make use of a trigram search for this. I must admit I've never seen the algorithm to implement an index, but have seen it working in pharmaceutical applications, where it copes very well indeed with badly misspelt drug names. You might be able to apply the same kind of logic to this problem.

Answer 8

The key understanding here is that you do have a proper distance metric. That is in fact not your problem at all. Your problem is in classification.

Let me give you an example. Say you have 20 entries for the Foo X1 and 20 for the Foo Y1. You can safely assume they are two groups. On the other hand, if you have 39 entries for the Bar X1 and 1 for the Bar Y1, you should treat them as a single group.

Now, the distance X1 <-> Y1 is the same in both examples, so why is there a difference in the classification? That is because Bar Y1 is an outlier, whereas Foo Y1 isn't.

The funny part is that you do not actually need to do a whole lot of work to determine these groups up front. You simply do an recursive classification. You start out with node per group, and then add the a supernode for the two closest nodes. In the supernode, store the best assumption, the size of its subtree and the variation in it. As many of your strings will be identical, you'll soon get large subtrees with identical entries. Recursion ends with the supernode containing at the root of the tree.

Now map the canonical names against this tree. You'll quickly see that each will match an entire subtree. Now, use the distances between these trees to pick the distance cutoff for that entry. If you have both Foo X1 and Foo Y1 products in the database, the cut-off distance will need to be lower to reflect that.

Answer 9

www.match-logics.com