Related
I have used three point estimation for one of my project.
Formula is
Three Point Estimate = (O + 4M + L ) / 6
That means,
Best Estimate + 4 x Most Likely Estimate + Worst Case Estimate divided by 6
Here
divided by 6 means, average 6
and there is less chance of the worst case or the best case happening. In good faith, most likely estimate (M), is what it will take to get the job done.
But I don't know why they use 4(M). Why they multiplied by 4 ???. Not use 5,6,7 etc...
why most likely estimate is weighted four times as much as the other two values ?
There is a derivation here:
http://www.deepfriedbrainproject.com/2010/07/magical-formula-of-pert.html
In case the link goes dead, I'll provide a summary here.
So, taking a step back from the question for a moment, the goal here is to come up with a single mean (average) figure that we can say is the expected figure for any given 3 point estimate. That is to say, If I was to attempt the project X times, and add up all the costs of the project attempts for a total of $Y, then I expect the cost of one attempt to be $Y/X. Note that this number may or may not be the same as the mode (most likely) outcome, depending on the probability distribution.
An expected outcome is useful because we can do things like add up a whole list of expected outcomes to create an expected outcome for the project, even if we calculated each individual expected outcome differently.
A mode on the other hand, is not even necessarily unique per estimate, so that's one reason that it may be less useful than an expected outcome. For example, every number from 1-6 is the "most likely" for a dice roll, but 3.5 is the (only) expected average outcome.
The rationale/research behind a 3 point estimate is that in many (most?) real-world scenarios, these numbers can be more accurately/intuitively estimated by people than a single expected value:
A pessimistic outcome (P)
An optimistic outcome (O)
The most likely outcome (M)
However, to convert these three numbers into an expected value we need a probability distribution that interpolates all the other (potentially infinite) possible outcomes beyond the 3 we produced.
The fact that we're even doing a 3-point estimate presumes that we don't have enough historical data to simply lookup/calculate the expected value for what we're about to do, so we probably don't know what the actual probability distribution for what we're estimating is.
The idea behind the PERT estimates is that if we don't know the actual curve, we can plug some sane defaults into a Beta distribution (which is basically just a curve we can customise into many different shapes) and use those defaults for every problem we might face. Of course, if we know the real distribution, or have reason to believe that default Beta distribution prescribed by PERT is wrong for the problem at hand, we should NOT use the PERT equations for our project.
The Beta distribution has two parameters A and B that set the shape of the left and right hand side of the curve respectively. Conveniently, we can calculate the mode, mean and standard deviation of a Beta distribution simply by knowing the minimum/maximum values of the curve, as well as A and B.
PERT sets A and B to the following for every project/estimate:
If M > (O + P) / 2 then A = 3 + √2 and B = 3 - √2, otherwise the values of A and B are swapped.
Now, it just so happens that if you make that specific assumption about the shape of your Beta distribution, the following formulas are exactly true:
Mean (expected value) = (O + 4M + P) / 6
Standard deviation = (O - P) / 6
So, in summary
The PERT formulas are not based on a normal distribution, they are based on a Beta distribution with a very specific shape
If your project's probability distribution matches the PERT Beta distribution then the PERT formula are exactly correct, they are not approximations
It is pretty unlikely that the specific curve chosen for PERT matches any given arbitrary project, and so the PERT formulas will be an approximation in practise
If you don't know anything about the probability distribution of your estimate, you may as well leverage PERT as it's documented, understood by many people and relatively easy to use
If you know something about the probability distribution of your estimate that suggests something about PERT is inappropriate (like the 4x weighting towards the mode), then don't use it, use whatever you think is appropriate instead
The reason why you multiply by 4 to get the Mean (and not 5, 6, 7, etc.) is because the number 4 is tied to the shape of the underlying probability curve
Of course, PERT could have been based off a Beta distribution that yields 5, 6, 7 or any other number when calculating the Mean, or even a normal distribution, or a uniform distribution, or pretty much any other probability curve, but I'd suggest that the question of why they chose the curve they did is out of scope for this answer and possibly quite open ended/subjective anyway
I dug into this once. I cleverly neglected to write down the trail, so this is from memory.
So far as I can make out, the standards documents got it from the textbooks. The textbooks got it from the original 1950s write up in a statistics journals. The writeup in the journal was based on an internal report done by RAND as part of the overall work done to develop PERT for the Polaris program.
And that's where the trail goes cold. Nobody seems to have a firm idea of why they chose that formula. The best guess seems to be that it's based on a rough approximation of a normal distribution -- strictly, it's a triangular distribution. A lumpy bell curve, basically, that assumes that the "likely case" falls within 1 standard deviation of the true mean estimate.
4/6ths approximates 66.7%, which approximates 68%, which approximates the area under a normal distribution within one standard deviation of the mean.
All that being said, there are two problems:
It's essentially made up. There doesn't seem to be a firm basis for picking it. There's some Operational Research literature arguing for alternative distributions. In what universe are estimates normally distributed around the true outcome? I'd very much like to move there.
The accuracy-improving effect of the 3-point / PERT estimation method might be more about the breaking down of tasks into subtasks than from any particular formula. Psychologists studying what they call "the planning fallacy" have found that breaking down tasks -- "unpacking", in their terminology -- consistently improves estimates by making them higher and thus reducing inaccuracy. So perhaps the magic in PERT/3-point is the unpacking, not the formulae.
Isn't it a well working thumb-number?
The cone of uncertainty uses the factor 4 for the beginning phase of the project.
The book "Software Estimation" by Steve McConnell is based around the "cone of uncertainty" model and gives many "thumb-rules". However every approximated number or a thumb-rule is based on statistics from COCOMO or similar solid researches, models or studies.
Ideally these factors for O, M and L are derived using historical data for other projects in the same company in the same environment. In other words, the company should have 4 projects completed within M estimate, 1 within O and 1 within L. If my company/team had got 1 project completed within original O estimate, 2 projects within M and 2 within L, I would use another formula - (O + 2M + 2L) / 5. Does it make sense?
The cone of uncertainty was referenced above ... it's a well-known foundational element used in agile estimation practices.
What's the problem with it though? Doesn't it look too symmetrical - as if it's not natural, not really based on real data?
If you ever though that then you're right. The cone of uncertainty shown in the picture above is made up based on probabilities ... not actual raw data from real projects (but most of the times it's used as such).
Laurent Bossavit wrote a book and also gave a presentation where he presented his research on how that cone came to be (and other 'facts' we often believe in software engineering):
The Leprechauns of Software Engineering
https://www.amazon.com/Leprechauns-Software-Engineering-Laurent-Bossavit/dp/2954745509/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AkoddPeuxw
Is there some real data to support a cone of uncertainty? The closest he was able to find was a cone that can go up to 10x in the positive Y direction (so we can be up to 10 times off on our estimation in terms of the project taking 10 times as long in the end).
Hardly anybody estimates a project that ends up finishing 4 times earlier ... or ... gasp ... 10 times earlier.
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...
Suppose you were able keep track of the news mentions of different entities, like say "Steve Jobs" and "Steve Ballmer".
What are ways that could you tell whether the amount of mentions per entity per a given time period was unusual relative to their normal degree of frequency of appearance?
I imagine that for a more popular person like Steve Jobs an increase of like 50% might be unusual (an increase of 1000 to 1500), while for a relatively unknown CEO an increase of 1000% for a given day could be possible (an increase of 2 to 200). If you didn't have a way of scaling that your unusualness index could be dominated by unheard-ofs getting their 15 minutes of fame.
update: To make it clearer, it's assumed that you are already able to get a continuous news stream and identify entities in each news item and store all of this in a relational data store.
You could use a rolling average. This is how a lot of stock trackers work. By tracking the last n data points, you could see if this change was a substantial change outside of their usual variance.
You could also try some normalization -- one very simple one would be that each category has a total number of mentions (m), a percent change from the last time period (δ), and then some normalized value (z) where z = m * δ. Lets look at the table below (m0 is the previous value of m) :
Name m m0 δ z
Steve Jobs 4950 4500 .10 495
Steve Ballmer 400 300 .33 132
Larry Ellison 50 10 4.0 400
Andy Nobody 50 40 .20 10
Here, a 400% change for unknown Larry Ellison results in a z value of 400, a 10% change for the much better known Steve Jobs is 495, and my spike of 20% is still a low 10. You could tweak this algorithm depending on what you feel are good weights, or use standard deviation or the rolling average to find if this is far away from their "expected" results.
Create a database and keep a history of stories with a time stamp. You then have a history of stories over time of each category of news item you're monitoring.
Periodically calculate the number of stories per unit of time (you choose the unit).
Test if the current value is more than X standard deviations away from the historical data.
Some data will be more volatile than others so you may need to adjust X appropriately. X=1 is a reasonable starting point
Way over simplified-
store people's names and the amount of articles created in the past 24 hours with their name involved. Compare to historical data.
Real life-
If you're trying to dynamically pick out people's names, how would you go about doing that? Searching through articles how do you grab names? Once you grab a new name, do you search for all articles for him? How do you separate out Steve Jobs from Apple from Steve Jobs the new star running back that is generating a lot of articles?
If you're looking for simplicity, create a table with 50 people's names that you actually insert. Every day at midnight, have your program run a quick google query for past 24 hours and store the number of results. There are a lot of variables in this though that we're not accounting for.
The method you use is going to depend on the distribution of the counts for each person. My hunch is that they are not going to be normally distributed, which means that some of the standard approaches to longitudinal data might not be appropriate - especially for the small-fry, unknown CEOs you mention, who will have data that are very much non-continuous.
I'm really not well-versed enough in longitudinal methods to give you a solid answer here, but here's what I'd probably do if you locked me in a room to implement this right now:
Dig up a bunch of past data. Hard to say how much you'd need, but I would basically go until it gets computationally insane or the timeline gets unrealistic (not expecting Steve Jobs references from the 1930s).
In preparation for creating a simulated "probability distribution" of sorts (I'm using terms loosely here), more recent data needs to be weighted more than past data - e.g., a thousand years from now, hearing one mention of (this) Steve Jobs might be considered a noteworthy event, so you wouldn't want to be using expected counts from today (Andy's rolling mean is using this same principle). For each count (day) in your database, create a sampling probability that decays over time. Yesterday is the most relevant datum and should be sampled frequently; 30 years ago should not.
Sample out of that dataset using the weights and with replacement (i.e., same datum can be sampled more than once). How many draws you make depends on the data, how many people you're tracking, how good your hardware is, etc. More is better.
Compare your actual count of stories for the day in question to that distribution. What percent of the simulated counts lie above your real count? That's roughly (god don't let any economists look at this) the probability of your real count or a larger one happening on that day. Now you decide what's relevant - 5% is the norm, but it's an arbitrary, stupid norm. Just browse your results for awhile and see what seems relevant to you. The end.
Here's what sucks about this method: there's no trend in it. If Steve Jobs had 15,000 a week ago, 2000 three days ago, and 300 yesterday, there's a clear downward trend. But the method outlined above can only account for that by reducing the weights for the older data; it has no way to project that trend forward. It assumes that the process is basically stationary - that there's no real change going on over time, just more and less probable events from the same random process.
Anyway, if you have the patience and willpower, check into some real statistics. You could look into multilevel models (each day is a repeated measure nested within an individual), for example. Just beware of your parametric assumptions... mention counts, especially on the small end, are not going to be normal. If they fit a parametric distribution at all, it would be in the Poisson family: the Poisson itself (good luck), the overdispersed Poisson (aka negative binomial), or the zero-inflated Poisson (quite likely for your small-fry, no chance for Steve).
Awesome question, at any rate. Lend your support to the statistics StackExchange site, and once it's up you'll be able to get a much better answer than this.
What's the rationale behind the formula used in the hive_trend_mapper.py program of this Hadoop tutorial on calculating Wikipedia trends?
There are actually two components: a monthly trend and a daily trend. I'm going to focus on the daily trend, but similar questions apply to the monthly one.
In the daily trend, pageviews is an array of number of page views per day for this topic, one element per day, and total_pageviews is the sum of this array:
# pageviews for most recent day
y2 = pageviews[-1]
# pageviews for previous day
y1 = pageviews[-2]
# Simple baseline trend algorithm
slope = y2 - y1
trend = slope * log(1.0 +int(total_pageviews))
error = 1.0/sqrt(int(total_pageviews))
return trend, error
I know what it's doing superficially: it just looks at the change over the past day (slope), and scales this up to the log of 1+total_pageviews (log(1)==0, so this scaling factor is non-negative). It can be seen as treating the month's total pageviews as a weight, but tempered as it grows - this way, the total pageviews stop making a difference for things that are "popular enough," but at the same time big changes on insignificant don't get weighed as much.
But why do this? Why do we want to discount things that were initially unpopular? Shouldn't big deltas matter more for items that have a low constant popularity, and less for items that are already popular (for which the big deltas might fall well within a fraction of a standard deviation)? As a strawman, why not simply take y2-y1 and be done with it?
And what would the error be useful for? The tutorial doesn't really use it meaningfully again. Then again, it doesn't tell us how trend is used either - this is what's plotted in the end product, correct?
Where can I read up for a (preferably introductory) background on the theory here? Is there a name for this madness? Is this a textbook formula somewhere?
Thanks in advance for any answers (or discussion!).
As the in-line comment goes, this is a simple "baseline trend algorithm",
which basically means before you compare the trends of two different pages, you have to establish
a baseline. In many cases, the mean value is used, it's straightforward if you
plot the pageviews against the time axis. This method is widely used in monitoring
water quality, air pollutants, etc. to detect any significant changes w.r.t the baseline.
In OP's case, the slope of pageviews is weighted by the log of totalpageviews.
This sorta uses the totalpageviews as a baseline correction for the slope. As Simon put it, this puts a balance
between two pages with very different totalpageviews.
For exmaple, A has a slope 500 over 1000,000 total pageviews, B is 1000 over 1,000.
A log basically means 1000,000 is ONLY twice more important than 1,000 (rather than 1000 times).
If you only consider the slope, A is less popular than B.
But with a weight, now the measure of popularity of A is the same as B. I think it is quite intuitive:
though A's pageviews is only 500 pageviews, but that's because it's saturating, you still gotta give it enough credit.
As for the error, I believe it comes from the (relative) standard error, which has a factor 1/sqrt(n), where
n is the number of data points. In the code, the error is equal to (1/sqrt(n))*(1/sqrt(mean)).
It roughly translates into : the more data points, the more accurate the trend. I don't see
it is an exact math formula, just a brute trend analysis algorithm, anyway the relative
value is more important in this context.
In summary, I believe it's just an empirical formula. More advanced topics can be found in some biostatistics textbooks (very similar to monitoring the breakout of a flu or the like.)
The code implements statistics (in this case the "baseline trend"), you should educate yourself on that and everything becomes clearer. Wikibooks has a good instroduction.
The algorithm takes into account that new pages are by definition more unpopular than existing ones (because - for example - they are linked from relatively few other places) and suggests that those new pages will grow in popularity over time.
error is the error margin the system expects for its prognoses. The higher error is, the more unlikely the trend will continue as expected.
The reason for moderating the measure by the volume of clicks is not to penalise popular pages but to make sure that you can compare large and small changes with a single measure. If you just use y2 - y1 you will only ever see the click changes on large volume pages. What this is trying to express is "significant" change. 1000 clicks change if you attract 100 clicks is really significant. 1000 click change if you attract 100,000 is less so. What this formula is trying to do is make both of these visible.
Try it out at a few different scales in Excel, you'll get a good view of how it operates.
Hope that helps.
another way to look at it is this:
suppose your page and my page are made at same day, and ur page gets total views about ten million, and mine about 1 million till some point. then suppose the slope at some point is a million for me, and 0.5 million for you. if u just use slope, then i win, but ur page already had more views per day at that point, urs were having 5 million, and mine 1 million, so that a million on mine still makes it 2 million, and urs is 5.5 million for that day. so may be this scaling concept is to try to adjust the results to show that ur page is also good as a trend setter, and its slope is less but it already was more popular, but the scaling is only a log factor, so doesnt seem too problematic to me.
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