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.
Related
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
I'm trying to implement a MCTS algorithm for the AI of a small game. The game is a rpg-simulation. The AI should decides what moves to play in battle. It's a turn base battle (FF6-7 style). There is no movement involved.
I won't go into details but we can safely assume that we know with certainty what move will chose the player in any given situation when it is its turn to play.
Games end-up when one party has no unit alive (4v4). It can take any number of turn (may also never end). There is a lot of RNG element in the damage computation & skill processing (attacks can hit/miss, crit or not, there is a lots of procs going on that can "proc" or not, buffs can have % value to happens ect...).
Units have around 6 skills each to give an idea of the branching factor.
I've build-up a preliminary version of the MCTS that gives poor results for now. I'm having trouble with a few things :
One of my main issue is how to handle the non-deterministic states of my moves. I've read a few papers about this but I'm still in the dark.
Some suggest determinizing the game information and run a MCTS tree on that, repeat the process N times to cover a broad range of possible game states and use that information to take your final decision. In the end, it does multiply by a huge factor our computing time since we have to compute N times a MCTS tree instead of one. I cannot rely on that since over the course of a fight I've got thousands of RNG element : 2^1000 MCTS tree to compute where i already struggle with one is not an option :)
I had the idea of adding X children for the same move but it does not seems to be leading to a good answer either. It smooth the RNG curve a bit but can shift it in the opposite direction if the value of X is too big/small compared to the percentage of a particular RNG. And since I got multiple RNG par move (hit change, crit chance, percentage to proc something etc...) I cannot find a decent value of X that satisfies every cases. More of a badband-aid than anythign else.
Likewise adding 1 node per RNG tuple {hit or miss ,crit or not,proc1 or not,proc2 or not,etc...} for each move should cover every possible situations but has some heavy drawbacks : with 5 RNG mecanisms only that means 2^5 node to consider for each move, it is way too much to compute. If we manage to create them all, we could assign them a probability ( linked to the probability of each RNG element in the node's tuple) and use that probability during our selection phase. This should work overall but be really hard on the cpu :/
I also cannot "merge" them in one single node since I've got no way of averaging the player/monsters stat's value accuractely based on two different game state and averaging the move's result during the move processing itself is doable but requieres a lot of simplifcation that are a pain to code and will hurt our accuracy really fast anyway.
Do you have any ideas how to approach this problem ?
Some other aspects of the algorithm are eluding me:
I cannot do a full playout untill a end state because A) It would take a lot of my computing time and B) Some battle may never ends (by design). I've got 2 solutions (that i can mix)
- Do a random playout for X turns
- Use an evaluation function to try and score the situation.
Even if I consider only health point to evaluate I'm failing to find a good evaluation function to return a reliable value for a given situation (between 1-4 units for the player and the same for the monsters ; I know their hp current/max value). What bothers me is that the fights can vary greatly in length / disparity of powers. That means that sometimes a 0.01% change in Hp matters (for a long game vs a boss for example) and sometimes it is just insignificant (when the player farm a low lvl zone compared to him).
The disparity of power and Hp variance between fights means that my Biais parameter in the UCB selection process is hard to fix. i'm currently using something very low, like 0.03. Anything > 0.1 and the exploration factor is so high that my tree is constructed depth by depth :/
For now I'm also using a biaised way to choose move during my simulation phase : it select the move that the player would choose in the situation and random ones for the AI, leading to a simulation biaised in favor of the player. I've tried using a pure random one for both, but it seems to give worse results. Do you think having a biaised simulation phase works against the purpose of the alogorithm? I'm inclined to think it would just give a pessimistic view to the AI and would not impact the end result too much. Maybe I'm wrong thought.
Any help is welcome :)
I think this question is way too broad for StackOverflow, but I'll give you some thoughts:
Using stochastic or probability in tree searches is usually called expectimax searches. You can find a good summary and pseudo-code for Expectimax Approximation with Monte-Carlo Tree Search in chapter 4, but I would recommend using a normal minimax tree search with the expectimax extension. There are a few modifications like Star1, Star2 and Star2.5 for a better runtime (similiar to alpha-beta pruning).
It boils down to not only having decision nodes, but also chance nodes. The probability of each possible outcome should be known and the expected value of each node is multiplied with its probability to know its real expected value.
2^5 nodes per move is high, but not impossibly high, especially for low number of moves and a shallow search. Even a 1-3 depth search shoulld give you some results. In my tetris AI, there are ~30 different possible moves to consider and I calculate the result of three following pieces (for each possible) to select my move. This is done in 2 seconds. I'm sure you have much more time for calculation since you're waiting for user input.
If you know what move the player is obvious, shouldn't it also obvious for your AI?
You don't need to consider a single value (hp), you can have several factors that are weighted different to calculate the expected value. If I come back to my tetris AI, there are 7 factors (bumpiness, highest piece, number of holes, ...) that are calculated, weighted and added together. To get the weights, you could use different methods, I used a genetic algorithm to find the combination of weights that resulted in most lines cleared.
I have devised a test in order to compare the different running times of my sorting algorithm with Insertion sort, bubble sort, quick sort, selection sort, and shell sort. I have based my test using the test done in this website http://warp.povusers.org/SortComparison/index.html, but I modified my test a bit.
I set up a test manager program server which generates the data, and the test manager sends it to the clients that run the different algorithms, therefore they are sorting the same data to have no bias.
I noticed that the insertion sort, bubble sort, and selection sort algorithms really did run for a very long time (some more than 15 minutes) just to sort one given data for sizes of 100,000 and 1,000,000.
So I changed the number of runs per test case for those two data sizes. My original runs for the 100,000 was 500 but I reduced it to 15, and for 1,000,000 was 100 and I reduced it to 3.
Now my professor doubts the credibility as to why I've reduced it that much, but as I've observed the running time for sorting a specific data distribution varied only by a small percentage, which is why I still find it that even though I've reduced it to that much I'd still be able to approximate the average runtime for that specific test case of that algorithm.
My question now is, is my assumption wrong? Does the machine at times make significant running time changes (>50% changes), like say for example sorting the same data over and over if a first run would give it 0.3 milliseconds will the second run give as much difference as making it run for 1.5 seconds? Because from my observation, the running times don't vary largely given the same type of test distribution (e.g. completely random, completely sorted, completely reversed).
What you are looking for is a way to measure error in your experiments. My favorite book on subject is Error Analysis by Taylor and Chapter 4 has what you need which I'll summarize here.
You need to calculate Standard error of the mean or SDOM. First calculate mean and standard deviation (formulas are on Wikipedia and quite simple). Your SDOM is standard deviation divided by square root of number of measurements. Assuming your timings have Normal distribution (which it should), the twice the value of SDOM is a very common way to specify +/- error.
For example, let's say you run sorting algorithm 5 times and get following numbers: 5, 6, 7, 4, 5. Then mean is 5.4 and standard deviation is 1.1. Therefor SDOM is 1.1/sqrt(5) = 0.5. So 2*SDOM = 1. Now you can say that algorithm rum time was 5.4 ± 1. You professor can determine if this is acceptable error in measurement. Notice that as you take more readings, your SDOM, i.e. plus or minus error, goes down inversely proportional to square root of N. Twice of SDOM interval has 95% probability or confidence that the true value lies within the interval which is accepted standard.
Also you most likely want to measure performance by measuring CPU time instead of simple timer. Modern CPUs are too complex with various cache level and pipeline optimizations and you might end up getting less accurate measurement if you are using timer. More about CPU time is in this answer: How can I measure CPU time and wall clock time on both Linux/Windows?
It absolutely does. You need a variety of "random" samples in order to be able to draw proper conclusions about the population.
Look at it this way. It takes a long time to poll 100,000 people in the U.S. about their political stance. If we reduce the sample size to 100 people in order to complete it faster, we not only reduce the precision of our final result (2 decimal places rather than 5), we also introduce a larger chance that the members of the sample have a specific bias (there is a greater chance that 100 people out of 3xx,000,000 think the same way than 100,000 out of those same 3xx,000,000).
Your professor is right, however he's not provided the details that I mention some of them here :
Sampling issue: It's right that you generate some random numbers and feed them to your sorting methods, but with a few test cases indeed you're biased cause almost all of the random functions are biased to some extent (specially to the state of machine or time at the moment), so you should use more and more test cases to be more confident about the randomness.
Machine state: Suppose you've provide perfect data (fully representative of a uniform distribution), the performance of the electro-mechanical devises like computers may vary in different situations, so you should try for considerable times to smooth the effects of these phenomena.
Note : In advanced technical reports, you should provide a confidence coefficient for the answers you provide derived from statistical analysis, and proven step by step, but if you don't need to be that much exact, simply increase these :
The size of the data
The number of tests
tl;dr: I want to predict file copy completion. What are good methods given the start time and the current progress?
Firstly, I am aware that this is not at all a simple problem, and that predicting the future is difficult to do well. For context, I'm trying to predict the completion of a long file copy.
Current Approach:
At the moment, I'm using a fairly naive formula that I came up with myself: (ETC stands for Estimated Time of Completion)
ETC = currTime + elapsedTime * (totalSize - sizeDone) / sizeDone
This works on the assumption that the remaining files to be copied will do so at the average copy speed thus far, which may or may not be a realistic assumption (dealing with tape archives here).
PRO: The ETC will change gradually, and becomes more and more accurate as the process nears completion.
CON: It doesn't react well to unexpected events, like the file copy becoming stuck or speeding up quickly.
Another idea:
The next idea I had was to keep a record of the progress for the last n seconds (or minutes, given that these archives are supposed to take hours), and just do something like:
ETC = currTime + currAvg * (totalSize - sizeDone)
This is kind of the opposite of the first method in that:
PRO: If the speed changes quickly, the ETC will update quickly to reflect the current state of affairs.
CON: The ETC may jump around a lot if the speed is inconsistent.
Finally
I'm reminded of the control engineering subjects I did at uni, where the objective is essentially to try to get a system that reacts quickly to sudden changes, but isn't unstable and crazy.
With that said, the other option I could think of would be to calculate the average of both of the above, perhaps with some kind of weighting:
Weight the first method more if the copy has a fairly consistent long-term average speed, even if it jumps around a bit locally.
Weight the second method more if the copy speed is unpredictable, and is likely to do things like speed up/slow down for long periods, or stop altogether for long periods.
What I am really asking for is:
Any alternative approaches to the two I have given.
If and how you would combine several different methods to get a final prediction.
If you feel that the accuracy of prediction is important, the way to go about about building a predictive model is as follows:
collect some real-world measurements;
split them into three disjoint sets: training, validation and test;
come up with some predictive models (you already have two plus a mix) and fit them using the training set;
check predictive performance of the models on the validation set and pick the one that performs best;
use the test set to assess the out-of-sample prediction error of the chosen model.
I'd hazard a guess that a linear combination of your current model and the "average over the last n seconds" would perform pretty well for the problem at hand. The optimal weights for the linear combination can be fitted using linear regression (a one-liner in R).
An excellent resource for studying statistical learning methods is The Elements of
Statistical Learning by Hastie, Tibshirani and Friedman. I can't recommend that book highly enough.
Lastly, your second idea (average over the last n seconds) attempts to measure the instantaneous speed. A more robust technique for this might be to use the Kalman filter, whose purpose is exactly this:
Its purpose is to use measurements observed over time, containing
noise (random variations) and other inaccuracies, and produce values
that tend to be closer to the true values of the measurements and
their associated calculated values.
The principal advantage of using the Kalman filter rather than a fixed n-second sliding window is that it's adaptive: it will automatically use a longer averaging window when measurements jump around a lot than when they're stable.
Imho, bad implementations of ETC are wildly overused, which allows us to have a good laugh. Sometimes, it might be better to display facts instead of estimations, like:
5 of 10 files have been copied
10 of 200 MB have been copied
Or display facts and an estimation, and make clear that it is only an estimation. But I would not display only an estimation.
Every user knows that ETCs are often completely meaningless, and then it is hard to distinguish between meaningful ETCs and meaningless ETCs, especially for inexperienced users.
I have implemented two different solutions to address this problem:
The ETC for the current transfer at start time is based on a historic speed value. This value is refined after each transfer. During the transfer I compute a weighted average between the historic data and data from the current transfer, so that the closer to the end you are the more weight is given to actual data from the transfer.
Instead of showing a single ETC, show a range of time. The idea is to compute the ETC from the last 'n' seconds or minutes (like your second idea). I keep track of the best and worst case averages and compute a range of possible ETCs. This is kind of confusing to show in a GUI, but okay to show in a command line app.
There are two things to consider here:
the exact estimation
how to present it to the user
1. On estimation
Other than statistics approach, one simple way to have a good estimation of the current speed while erasing some noise or spikes is to take a weighted approach.
You already experimented with the sliding window, the idea here is to take a fairly large sliding window, but instead of a plain average, giving more weight to more recent measures, since they are more indicative of the evolution (a bit like a derivative).
Example: Suppose you have 10 previous windows (most recent x0, least recent x9), then you could compute the speed:
Speed = (10 * x0 + 9 * x1 + 8 * x2 + ... + x9) / (10 * window-time) / 55
When you have a good assessment of the likely speed, then you are close to get a good estimated time.
2. On presentation
The main thing to remember here is that you want a nice user experience, and not a scientific front.
Studies have demonstrated that users reacted very badly to slow-down and very positively to speed-up. Therefore, a good progress bar / estimated time should be conservative in the estimates presented (reserving time for a potential slow-down) at first.
A simple way to get that is to have a factor that is a percentage of the completion, that you use to tweak the estimated remaining time. For example:
real-completion = 0.4
presented-completion = real-completion * factor(real-completion)
Where factor is such that factor([0..1]) = [0..1], factor(x) <= x and factor(1) = 1. For example, the cubic function produces the nice speed-up toward the completion time. Other functions could use an exponential form 1 - e^x, etc...
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