I have two time series, see this pic:
I need to measure the level of "homogeneity" of the series. So the first one looks very fragmented, so it should have low value close to zero and the second one should have a high value.
Any ideas of an algorithm I could use?
I'm not sure what is meant by homogeneity, but there is a well-established notion of stationarity of a time series. Basically, a time series is stationary if its rolling mean and standard deviation are constant across time. Both of your time series seem to have roughly constant mean, but the top one has a standard deviation that changes wildly across time; sometimes it's almost zero, and at other times, it's very large. Perhaps you could take the standard deviation of the rolling standard deviation, which will be far higher for the top series than for the bottom. If you can load them into pandas as top and bottom, it might look like
top_nonstationarity = np.std(top.rolling(window_size).std())
bottom_nonstationarity = np.std(bottom.rolling(window_size).std())
It might help to know more about the underlying difference between the series, or what you care about, but here goes...
I would subtract constants, if required, to give both series mean zero, and then square them to get something resembling power and filter this enough to smooth away what seems to be noise in the case of the lower filter. Then compute and compare the variances of the two filtered powers, which for the lower time series I would now expect to be a fairly constant line with a few drops down and for the upper series something spending about half of its time near zero and about half of its time away from it.
Possible filters include a simple moving average, whatever your time series toolkit provides, and those described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitzky%E2%80%93Golay_filter
Related
I have a running/decaying sum that updates over time with live data. I would like to efficiently compute the first, second, and third derivatives.
The simplest way I can think of doing this is to calculate deltas over some time difference in the running/decaying sum. e.g.
t_0 sum_0
t_1 sum_1
first_derivative = (sum_1 - sum_0) / (t_1 - t0)
I can continue this process further with the second and third derivatives, which I think should work, but I'm not sure if this is the best way.
This running/decaying sum is not a defined function and relies on live updating data, so I can't just do a normal derivative.
I don't know what your real use case is, but it sounds like you're going about this the wrong way. For most cases I can imagine, what you really want to do is:
First determine the continuous signal that your time series represents; and then
You can exactly calculate the derivatives of this signal at any point.
Since you have already decided that your time series represents exponential decay with discontinuous jumps, you have decided that all your derivatives are simply proportional to the current value and provide no extra information.
This probably isn't what you really want.
You would probably be better off applying a more sophisticated low-pass filter to your samples. In situations like yours, where you receive intermittent updates, it can be convenient to design the impulse response as a weighted sum of exponential decays with different (and possibly complex) time scales.
If you use 4 or 5 exponentials, then you can ensure that the value and first 3 derivatives of the impulse response are all smooth, so none of the derivatives you have to report are discontinuous.
The impulse response of any all-pole IIR filter can be written as the sum of exponentials in this way, though "partial fraction decomposition", but I guess there is a lot of learning between you and there right now. Those terms are all Googlable.
An example impulse response that would be smoother than an exponential decay, is this one, that's 0 in the first 3 derivatives:
5( e-t - 4e-2t + 6e-3t - 4e-4t + e-5t )
You can scale the decay times however you like. It looks like this (from Wolfram Alpha):
To be clear, you are looking to smooth out data AND to estimate rate of change. But rate of change inherently amplifies noise. Any solution is going to have to make some tradeoffs.
Here is a simple hack based on your existing technique.
First, let's look at a general version of a basic decaying sum. Let's keep the following variables:
average_value
average_time
average_weight
And you have a decay rate decay.
To update with a new observation (value, time) you simply:
average_weight *= (1 - decay)**(time - average_time)
average_value = (average_value * average_weight + value) / (1 + average_weight)
average_time = (average_time * average_weight + time) / (1 + average_weight)
average_weight += 1
Therefore this moving average represents where your weight was some time ago. The slower the decay, the farther back it goes and the more smoothed out it is. Given that we want rate of change, the when is going to matter.
Now let's look at a first derivative. You have correctly put out a formula for estimating a first derivative. But at what time is that estimated derivative at? The answer turns out to be at time (t_0 + t_1) / 2. Any other time you pick, it will be systematically off based on the third derivative.
So you can play around with it, but you can estimate a derivative based on any source of values and timestamps. You can do it from your first derivative, or do it from a weighted average. You can even combine them. You can also do a running weighted average of the first derivative! But whatever you do, you need to keep track of WHEN it is a derivative FOR. (This is why I went through and discussed how far back a weighted average is, you need to think clearly about timestamping every piece of data you have, averaged or not.)
And now we have your second derivative. You have all the same choices for the second derivative that you do for the first. Except your measurements don't give a first derivative.
The third derivative follows the same pattern of choices.
However you do it, keep in mind the following.
Each derivative will be delayed.
The more up to date you keep them, the more noise will be a problem.
Make sure to think clearly about both what the measurement is, and when it is as of.
It may require experimentation to find what works best for your application.
I would like to find the time instant at which a certain value is reached in a time-series data with noise. If there are no peaks in the data, I could do the following in MATLAB.
Code from here
% create example data
d=1:100;
t=d/100;
ts = timeseries(d,t);
% define threshold
thr = 55;
data = ts.data(:);
time = ts.time(:);
ind = find(data>thr,1,'first');
time(ind) %time where data>threshold
But when there is noise, I am not sure what has to be done.
In the time-series data plotted in the above image I want to find the time instant at which the y-axis value 5 is reached. The data actually stabilizes to 5 at t>=100 s. But due to the presence of noise in the data, we see a peak that reaches 5 somewhere around 20 s . I would like to know how to detect e.g 100 seconds as the right time and not 20 s . The code posted above will only give 20 s as the answer. I
saw a post here that explains using a sliding window to find when the data equilibrates. However, I am not sure how to implement the same. Suggestions will be really helpful.
The sample data plotted in the above image can be found here
Suggestions on how to implement in Python or MATLAB code will be really helpful.
EDIT:
I don't want to capture when the peak (/noise/overshoot) occurs. I want to find the time when equilibrium is reached. For example, around 20 s the curve rises and dips below 5. After ~100 s the curve equilibrates to a steady-state value 5 and never dips or peaks.
Precise data analysis is a serious business (and my passion) that involves a lot of understanding of the system you are studying. Here are comments, unfortunately I doubt there is a simple nice answer to your problem at all -- you will have to think about it. Data analysis basically always requires "discussion".
First to your data and problem in general:
When you talk about noise, in data analysis this means a statistical random fluctuation. Most often Gaussian (sometimes also other distributions, e.g. Poission). Gaussian noise is a) random in each bin and b) symmetric in negative and positive direction. Thus, what you observe in the peak at ~20s is not noise. It has a very different, very systematic and extended characteristics compared to random noise. This is an "artifact" that must have a origin, but of which we can only speculate here. In real-world applications, studying and removing such artifacts is the most expensive and time-consuming task.
Looking at your data, the random noise is negligible. This is very precise data. For example, after ~150s and later there are no visible random fluctuations up to fourth decimal number.
After concluding that this is not noise in the common sense it could be a least two things: a) a feature of the system you are studying, thus, something where you could develop a model/formula for and which you could "fit" to the data. b) a characteristics of limited bandwidth somewhere in the measurement chain, thus, here a high-frequency cutoff. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringing_artifacts . Unfortunately, for both, a and b, there are no catch-all generic solutions. And your problem description (even with code and data) is not sufficient to propose an ideal approach.
After spending now ~one hour on your data and making some plots. I believe (speculate) that the extremely sharp feature at ~10s cannot be a "physical" property of the data. It simply is too extreme/steep. Something fundamentally happened here. A guess of mine could be that some device was just switched on (was off before). Thus, the data before is meaningless, and there is a short period of time afterwards to stabilize the system. There is not really an alternative in this scenario but to entirely discard the data until the system has stabilized at around 40s. This also makes your problem trivial. Just delete the first 40s, then the maximum becomes evident.
So what are technical solutions you could use, please don't be too upset that you have to think about this yourself and assemble the best possible solution for your case. I copied your data in two numpy arrays x and y and ran the following test in python:
Remove unstable time
This is the trivial solution -- I prefer it.
plt.figure()
plt.xlabel('time')
plt.ylabel('signal')
plt.plot(x, y, label="original")
y_cut = y
y_cut[:40] = 0
plt.plot(x, y_cut, label="cut 40s")
plt.legend()
plt.grid()
plt.show()
Note carry on reading below only if you are a bit crazy (about data).
Sliding window
You mentioned "sliding window" which is best suited for random noise (which you don't have) or periodic fluctuations (which you also don't really have). Sliding window just averages over consecutive bins, averaging out random fluctuations. Mathematically this is a convolution.
Technically, you can actually solve your problem like this (try even larger values of Nwindow yourself):
Nwindow=10
y_slide_10 = np.convolve(y, np.ones((Nwindow,))/Nwindow, mode='same')
Nwindow=20
y_slide_20 = np.convolve(y, np.ones((Nwindow,))/Nwindow, mode='same')
Nwindow=30
y_slide_30 = np.convolve(y, np.ones((Nwindow,))/Nwindow, mode='same')
plt.xlabel('time')
plt.ylabel('signal')
plt.plot(x,y, label="original")
plt.plot(x,y_slide_10, label="window=10")
plt.plot(x,y_slide_20, label='window=20')
plt.plot(x,y_slide_30, label='window=30')
plt.legend()
#plt.xscale('log') # useful
plt.grid()
plt.show()
Thus, technically you can succeed to suppress the initial "hump". But don't forget this is a hand-tuned and not general solution...
Another caveat of any sliding window solution: this always distorts your timing. Since you average over an interval in time depending on rising or falling signals your convoluted trace is shifted back/forth in time (slightly, but significantly). In your particular case this is not a problem since the main signal region has basically no time-dependence (very flat).
Frequency domain
This should be the silver bullet, but it also does not work well/easily for your example. The fact that this doesn't work better is the main hint to me that the first 40s of data are better discarded.... (i.e. in a scientific work)
You can use fast Fourier transform to inspect your data in frequency-domain.
import scipy.fft
y_fft = scipy.fft.rfft(y)
# original frequency domain plot
plt.plot(y_fft, label="original")
plt.xlabel('frequency')
plt.ylabel('signal')
plt.yscale('log')
plt.show()
The structure in frequency represent the features of your data. The peak a zero is the stabilized region after ~100s, the humps are associated to (rapid) changes in time. You can now play around and change the frequency spectrum (--> filter) but I think the spectrum is so artificial that this doesn't yield great results here. Try it with other data and you may be very impressed! I tried two things, first cut high-frequency regions out (set to zero), and second, apply a sliding-window filter in frequency domain (sparing the peak at 0, since this cannot be touched. Try and you know why).
# cut high-frequency by setting to zero
y_fft_2 = np.array(y_fft)
y_fft_2[50:70] = 0
# sliding window in frequency
Nwindow = 15
Start = 10
y_fft_slide = np.array(y_fft)
y_fft_slide[Start:] = np.convolve(y_fft[Start:], np.ones((Nwindow,))/Nwindow, mode='same')
# frequency-domain plot
plt.plot(y_fft, label="original")
plt.plot(y_fft_2, label="high-frequency, filter")
plt.plot(y_fft_slide, label="frequency sliding window")
plt.xlabel('frequency')
plt.ylabel('signal')
plt.yscale('log')
plt.legend()
plt.show()
Converting this back into time-domain:
# reverse FFT into time-domain for plotting
y_filtered = scipy.fft.irfft(y_fft_2)
y_filtered_slide = scipy.fft.irfft(y_fft_slide)
# time-domain plot
plt.plot(x[:500], y[:500], label="original")
plt.plot(x[:500], y_filtered[:500], label="high-f filtered")
plt.plot(x[:500], y_filtered_slide[:500], label="frequency sliding window")
# plt.xscale('log') # useful
plt.grid()
plt.legend()
plt.show()
yields
There are apparent oscillations in those solutions which make them essentially useless for your purpose. This leads me to my final exercise to again apply a sliding-window filter on the "frequency sliding window" time-domain
# extra time-domain sliding window
Nwindow=90
y_fft_90 = np.convolve(y_filtered_slide, np.ones((Nwindow,))/Nwindow, mode='same')
# final time-domain plot
plt.plot(x[:500], y[:500], label="original")
plt.plot(x[:500], y_fft_90[:500], label="frequency-sliding window, slide")
# plt.xscale('log') # useful
plt.legend()
plt.show()
I am quite happy with this result, but it still has very small oscillations and thus does not solve your original problem.
Conclusion
How much fun. One hour well wasted. Maybe it is useful to someone. Maybe even to you Natasha. Please be not mad a me...
Let's assume your data is in data variable and time indices are in time. Then
import numpy as np
threshold = 0.025
stable_index = np.where(np.abs(data[-1] - data) > threshold)[0][-1] + 1
print('Stabilizes after', time[stable_index], 'sec')
Stabilizes after 96.6 sec
Here data[-1] - data is a difference between last value of data and all the data values. The assumption here is that the last value of data represents the equilibrium point.
np.where( * > threshold )[0] are all the indices of values of data which are greater than the threshold, that is still not stabilized. We take only the last index. The next one is where time series is considered stabilized, hence the + 1.
If you're dealing with deterministic data which is eventually converging monotonically to some fixed value, the problem is pretty straightforward. Your last observation should be the closest to the limit, so you can define an acceptable tolerance threshold relative to that last data point and scan your data from back to front to find where you exceeded your threshold.
Things get a lot nastier once you add random noise into the picture, particularly if there is serial correlation. This problem is common in simulation modeling(see (*) below), and is known as the issue of initial bias. It was first identified by Conway in 1963, and has been an active area of research since then with no universally accepted definitive answer on how to deal with it. As with the deterministic case, the most widely accepted answers approach the problem starting from the right-hand side of the data set since this is where the data are most likely to be in steady state. Techniques based on this approach use the end of the dataset to establish some sort of statistical yardstick or baseline to measure where the data start looking significantly different as observations get added by moving towards the front of the dataset. This is greatly complicated by the presence of serial correlation.
If a time series is in steady state, in the sense of being covariance stationary then a simple average of the data is an unbiased estimate of its expected value, but the standard error of the estimated mean depends heavily on the serial correlation. The correct standard error squared is no longer s2/n, but instead it is (s2/n)*W where W is a properly weighted sum of the autocorrelation values. A method called MSER was developed in the 1990's, and avoids the issue of trying to correctly estimate W by trying to determine where the standard error is minimized. It treats W as a de-facto constant given a sufficiently large sample size, so if you consider the ratio of two standard error estimates the W's cancel out and the minimum occurs where s2/n is minimized. MSER proceeds as follows:
Starting from the end, calculate s2 for half of the data set to establish a baseline.
Now update the estimate of s2 one observation at a time using an efficient technique such as Welford's online algorithm, calculate s2/n where n is the number of observations tallied so far. Track which value of n yields the smallest s2/n. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Once you've traversed the entire data set from back to front, the n which yielded the smallest s2/n is the number of observations from the end of the data set which are not detectable as being biased by the starting conditions.
Justification - with a sufficiently large baseline (half your data), s2/n should be relatively stable as long as the time series remains in steady state. Since n is monotonically increasing, s2/n should continue decreasing subject to the limitations of its variability as an estimate. However, once you start acquiring observations which are not in steady state the drift in mean and variance will inflate the numerator of s2/n. Hence the minimal value corresponds to the last observation where there was no indication of non-stationarity. More details can be found in this proceedings paper. A Ruby implementation is available on BitBucket.
Your data has such a small amount of variation that MSER concludes that it is still converging to steady state. As such, I'd advise going with the deterministic approach outlined in the first paragraph. If you have noisy data in the future, I'd definitely suggest giving MSER a shot.
(*) - In a nutshell, a simulation model is a computer program and hence has to have its state set to some set of initial values. We generally don't know what the system state will look like in the long run, so we initialize it to an arbitrary but convenient set of values and then let the system "warm up". The problem is that the initial results of the simulation are not typical of the steady state behaviors, so including that data in your analyses will bias them. The solution is to remove the biased portion of the data, but how much should that be?
I'm logging temperature values in a room, saving them to the database. I'd like to be alerted when temperature rises suddenly. I can't set fixed values, because 18°C is acceptable in winter and 25°C is acceptable in summer. But if it jumps from 20°C to 25°C during, let's say, 30 minutes and stays like this for 5 minutes (to eliminate false readouts), I'd like to be informed.
My current idea is to take readouts from last 30 minutes (A) and readouts from last 5 minutes (B), calculate median of A and B and check if difference between them is less then my desired threshold.
Is this correct way to solve this or is there a better algorithm? I searched for a specific one but most of them seem overcomplicated.
Thanks!
Detecting changes in a time-series is a well-researched subject, and hundreds if not thousands of papers have been written on this subject. As you've seen many methods are quite advanced, but proved to be quite useful for many use cases. Whatever method you choose, you should evaluate it against real of simulated data, and optimize its parameters for your use case.
As you require, let me suggest a very simple method that in many cases prove to be good enough, and is quite similar to that you considered.
Basically, you have two concerns:
Detecting a monotonous change in a sampled noisy signal
Ignoring false readouts
First, note that medians are not commonly used for detecting trends. For the series (1,2,3,30,35,3,2,1) the medians of 5 consecutive terms is be (3, 3, 3, 3). It is much more common to use averages.
One common trick is to throw the extreme values before averaging (e.g. for each 7 values average only the middle 5). If many false readouts are expected - try to take measurements at a faster rate, and throw more extreme values (e.g. for each 13 values average the middle 9).
Also, you should throw away unfeasible values and replace them with the last measured value (unfeasible means out of range, or non-physical change rate).
Your idea of comparing a short-period measure with a long-period measure is a good idea, and indeed it is commonly used (e.g. in econometrics).
Quoting from "Financial Econometric Models - Some Contributions to the Field [Nicolau, 2007]:
Buy and sell signals are generated by two moving averages of the price
level: a long-period average and a short-period average. A typical
moving average trading rule prescribes a buy (sell) when the
short-period moving average crosses the long-period moving average
from below (above) (i.e. when the original time series is rising
(falling) relatively fast).
When you say "rises suddenly," mathematically you are talking about the magnitude of the derivative of the temperature signal.
There is a nice algorithm to simultaneously smooth a signal and calculate its derivative called the Savitzky–Golay filter. It's explained with examples on Wikipedia, or you can use Matlab to help you generate the convolution coefficients required. Once you have the coefficients the calculation is very simple.
I have a long time series with some repeating and similar looking signals in it (not entirely periodical). The length of the time series is about 60000 samples. To identify the signals, I take out one of them, having a length of around 1000 samples and move it along my timeseries data sample by sample, and compute cross-correlation coefficient (in Matlab: corrcoef). If this value is above some threshold, then there is a match.
But this is excruciatingly slow (using 'for loop' to move the window).
Is there a way to speed this up, or maybe there is already some mechanism in Matlab for this ?
Many thanks
Edited: added information, regarding using 'xcorr' instead:
If I use 'xcorr', or at least the way I have used it, I get the wrong picture. Looking at the data (first plot), there are two types of repeating signals. One marked by red rectangles, whereas the other and having much larger amplitudes (this is coherent noise) is marked by a black rectangle. I am interested in the first type. Second plot shows the signal I am looking for, blown up.
If I use 'xcorr', I get the third plot. As you see, 'xcorr' gives me the wrong signal (there is in fact high cross correlation between my signal and coherent noise).
But using "'corrcoef' and moving the window, I get the last plot which is the correct one.
There maybe a problem of normalization when using 'xcorr', but I don't know.
I can think of two ways to speed things up.
1) make your template 1024 elements long. Suddenly, correlation can be done using FFT, which is significantly faster than DFT or element-by-element multiplication for every position.
2) Ask yourself what it is about your template shape that you really care about. Do you really need the very high frequencies, or are you really after lower frequencies? If you could re-sample your template and signal so it no longer contains any frequencies you don't care about, it will make the processing very significantly faster. Steps to take would include
determine the highest frequency you care about
filter your data so higher frequencies are blocked
resample the resulting data at a lower sampling frequency
Now combine that with a template whose size is a power of 2
You might find this link interesting reading.
Let us know if any of the above helps!
Your problem seems like a textbook example of cross-correlation. Therefore, there's no good reason using any solution other than xcorr. A few technical comments:
xcorr assumes that the mean was removed from the two cross-correlated signals. Furthermore, by default it does not scale the signals' standard deviations. Both of these issues can be solved by z-scoring your two signals: c=xcorr(zscore(longSig,1),zscore(shortSig,1)); c=c/n; where n is the length of the shorter signal should produce results equivalent with your sliding window method.
xcorr's output is ordered according to lags, which can obtained as in a second output argument ([c,lags]=xcorr(..). Always plot xcorr results by plot(lags,c). I recommend trying a synthetic signal to verify that you understand how to interpret this chart.
xcorr's implementation already uses Discere Fourier Transform, so unless you have unusual conditions it will be a waste of time to code a frequency-domain cross-correlation again.
Finally, a comment about terminology: Correlating corresponding time points between two signals is plain correlation. That's what corrcoef does (it name stands for correlation coefficient, no 'cross-correlation' there). Cross-correlation is the result of shifting one of the signals and calculating the correlation coefficient for each lag.
What is an algorithm to compare multiple sets of numbers against a target set to determine which ones are the most "similar"?
One use of this algorithm would be to compare today's hourly weather forecast against historical weather recordings to find a day that had similar weather.
The similarity of two sets is a bit subjective, so the algorithm really just needs to diferentiate between good matches and bad matches. We have a lot of historical data, so I would like to try to narrow down the amount of days the users need to look through by automatically throwing out sets that aren't close and trying to put the "best" matches at the top of the list.
Edit:
Ideally the result of the algorithm would be comparable to results using different data sets. For example using the mean square error as suggested by Niles produces pretty good results, but the numbers generated when comparing the temperature can not be compared to numbers generated with other data such as Wind Speed or Precipitation because the scale of the data is different. Some of the non-weather data being is very large, so the mean square error algorithm generates numbers in the hundreds of thousands compared to the tens or hundreds that is generated by using temperature.
I think the mean square error metric might work for applications such as weather compares. It's easy to calculate and gives numbers that do make sense.
Since your want to compare measurements over time you can just leave out missing values from the calculation.
For values that are not time-bound or even unsorted, multi-dimensional scatter data it's a bit more difficult. Choosing a good distance metric becomes part of the art of analysing such data.
Use the pearson correlation coefficient. I figured out how to calculate it in an SQL query which can be found here: http://vanheusden.com/misc/pearson.php
In finance they use Beta to measure the correlation of 2 series of numbers. EG, Beta could answer the question "Over the last year, how much would the price of IBM go up on a day that the price of the S&P 500 index went up 5%?" It deals with the percentage of the move, so the 2 series can have different scales.
In my example, the Beta is Covariance(IBM, S&P 500) / Variance(S&P 500).
Wikipedia has pages explaining Covariance, Variance, and Beta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_(finance)
Look at statistical sites. I think you are looking for correlation.
As an example, I'll assume you're measuring temp, wind, and precip. We'll call these items "features". So valid values might be:
Temp: -50 to 100F (I'm in Minnesota, USA)
Wind: 0 to 120 Miles/hr (not sure if this is realistic but bear with me)
Precip: 0 to 100
Start by normalizing your data. Temp has a range of 150 units, Wind 120 units, and Precip 100 units. Multiply your wind units by 1.25 and Precip by 1.5 to make them roughly the same "scale" as your temp. You can get fancy here and make rules that weigh one feature as more valuable than others. In this example, wind might have a huge range but usually stays in a smaller range so you want to weigh it less to prevent it from skewing your results.
Now, imagine each measurement as a point in multi-dimensional space. This example measures 3d space (temp, wind, precip). The nice thing is, if we add more features, we simply increase the dimensionality of our space but the math stays the same. Anyway, we want to find the historical points that are closest to our current point. The easiest way to do that is Euclidean distance. So measure the distance from our current point to each historical point and keep the closest matches:
for each historicalpoint
distance = sqrt(
pow(currentpoint.temp - historicalpoint.temp, 2) +
pow(currentpoint.wind - historicalpoint.wind, 2) +
pow(currentpoint.precip - historicalpoint.precip, 2))
if distance is smaller than the largest distance in our match collection
add historicalpoint to our match collection
remove the match with the largest distance from our match collection
next
This is a brute-force approach. If you have the time, you could get a lot fancier. Multi-dimensional data can be represented as trees like kd-trees or r-trees. If you have a lot of data, comparing your current observation with every historical observation would be too slow. Trees speed up your search. You might want to take a look at Data Clustering and Nearest Neighbor Search.
Cheers.
Talk to a statistician.
Seriously.
They do this type of thing for a living.
You write that the "similarity of two sets is a bit subjective", but it's not subjective at all-- it's a matter of determining the appropriate criteria for similarity for your problem domain.
This is one of those situation where you are much better off speaking to a professional than asking a bunch of programmers.
First of all, ask yourself if these are sets, or ordered collections.
I assume that these are ordered collections with duplicates. The most obvious algorithm is to select a tolerance within which numbers are considered the same, and count the number of slots where the numbers are the same under that measure.
I do have a solution implemented for this in my application, but I'm looking to see if there is something that is better or more "correct". For each historical day I do the following:
function calculate_score(historical_set, forecast_set)
{
double c = correlation(historical_set, forecast_set);
double avg_history = average(historical_set);
double avg_forecast = average(forecast_set);
double penalty = abs(avg_history - avg_forecast) / avg_forecast
return c - penalty;
}
I then sort all the results from high to low.
Since the correlation is a value from -1 to 1 that says whether the numbers fall or rise together, I then "penalize" that with the percentage difference the averages of the two sets of numbers.
A couple of times, you've mentioned that you don't know the distribution of the data, which is of course true. I mean, tomorrow there could be a day that is 150 degree F, with 2000km/hr winds, but it seems pretty unlikely.
I would argue that you have a very good idea of the distribution, since you have a long historical record. Given that, you can put everything in terms of quantiles of the historical distribution, and do something with absolute or squared difference of the quantiles on all measures. This is another normalization method, but one that accounts for the non-linearities in the data.
Normalization in any style should make all variables comparable.
As example, let's say that a day it's a windy, hot day: that might have a temp quantile of .75, and a wind quantile of .75. The .76 quantile for heat might be 1 degree away, and the one for wind might be 3kmh away.
This focus on the empirical distribution is easy to understand as well, and could be more robust than normal estimation (like Mean-square-error).
Are the two data sets ordered, or not?
If ordered, are the indices the same? equally spaced?
If the indices are common (temperatures measured on the same days (but different locations), for example, you can regress the first data set against the second,
and then test that the slope is equal to 1, and that the intercept is 0.
http://stattrek.com/AP-Statistics-4/Test-Slope.aspx?Tutorial=AP
Otherwise, you can do two regressions, of the y=values against their indices. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation. You'd still want to compare slopes and intercepts.
====
If unordered, I think you want to look at the cumulative distribution functions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumulative_distribution_function
One relevant test is Kolmogorov-Smirnov:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov-Smirnov_test
You could also look at
Student's t-test,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student%27s_t-test
or a Wilcoxon signed-rank test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilcoxon_signed-rank_test
to test equality of means between the two samples.
And you could test for equality of variances with a Levene test http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35a.htm
Note: it is possible for dissimilar sets of data to have the same mean and variance -- depending on how rigorous you want to be (and how much data you have), you could consider testing for equality of higher moments, as well.
Maybe you can see your set of numbers as a vector (each number of the set being a componant of the vector).
Then you can simply use dot product to compute the similarity of 2 given vectors (i.e. set of numbers).
You might need to normalize your vectors.
More : Cosine similarity