I'm aggregating concert listings from several different sources, none of which are both complete and accurate. Some of the data comes from users (such as on last.fm), and may be incorrect. Other data sources are highly accurate, but may not contain every event. I can use attributes such as the event date, and the city/state to try to match listings from disparate sources. I'd like to be reasonably certain that the events are valid. It seems like it would be a good strategy to consume as many different sources as possible to validate listings on error-prone sources.
I'm not sure what the technical term for this is, as I'd like to research it further. Is it data mining? Are there any existing algorithms? I understand a solution will never be completely accurate.
Here is an approach that locates it within statistics - specifically, it uses a Hidden Markov Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Markov_model):
1) Use your matching process to produce a cleaned list of possible events. Consider each event to be marked "true" or "bogus", even though the markings are hidden from you. You might imagine that some source of events produces them, generating them as either "true" or "bogus" according to a probability which is an unknown parameter.
2) Associate unknown parameters with each source of listings. These give the probability that this source will report a true event produced by the source of events, and the probability that it will report a bogus event produced by the source.
3) Notice that if you could see the markings of "true" or "bogus" you could easily work out the probabilities for each source. Unfortunately, of course, you can't see these hidden markings.
4) Let's call these hidden markings "Latent Variables" because then you can use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em_algorithm to hillclimb to promising solutions for this problem, from random starts.
5) You can obviously make the problem more complicated by dividing events up into classes, and giving sources of listing parameters which make them more likely to report some classes of events than others. This might be useful if you have sources that are extremely reliable for some sorts of events.
I believe the term you are looking for is Record Linkage -
the process of bringing together two or more records relating to the same entity(e.g., person, family, event, community, business, hospital, or geographical area)
This presentation (PDF) looks like a nice introduction to the field. One algorithm you might use is Fellegi-Holt - a statistical method for editing records.
One potential search term is "fuzzy logic".
I'd use a float or double to store a probability (0.0 = disproved ... 1.0 = proven) of some event details being correct. As you encounter sources, adjust the probabilities accordingly. There's a lot for you to consider though:
attempting to recognise when multiple sources have copied from each other and reduce their impact
giving more weight to more recent data or data that explicitly acknowledges the old data (e.g. given a 100% reliable site saying "concert X to be held on 4th August", and a unknown blog alleging "concert X moved from 4th August to 9th", you might keep the probability of there being such a concert at 100% but have a list with both dates and whatever probabilities you think appropriate...)
beware assuming things are discrete; contradictory information may reflect multiple similar events, dual billing, same-surnamed performers etc. - the more confident you are that the same things are referenced, the more the data can combined to reinforce or negate each other
you should be able to "backtest" your evolving logic by using data related to a set of concerts where you now have full knowledge of their actual staging or lack thereof; process data posted before various cut-off dates prior to the events to see how the predictions you derive reflect the actual outcomes, tweak and repeat (perhaps automatically)
It may be most practical to start scraping from the sites you have, then consider the logical implications of the types of information you're seeing. Which aspects of the problem need to be handled using fuzzy logic can then be decided. An evolutionary approach may mean reworking things, but may end up faster than getting bogged down in a nebulous design phase.
Data mining is about finding information from structured sources like a database, or a post where the fields are separated for you. There's some text mining in here when you have to parse the information out of free text. In either case, you could keep track of how many data sources agree on a show as a confidence measure. Either display the confidence measure or use it to decide if your data is good enough. There's lots to play with. Having a list of legitimate cities, venues and acts can help you decide if a string represents a legitimate entity. Your lists might even be in a database that lets you compare city and venue for consistency.
Related
I recently constructed a simple name popularity tool (http://names.yafla.com) that allows users to select names and investigate their popularity over time and by state. This is just a fun project and has no commercial or professional value, but solved a curiosity itch.
One improvement I would like to add is the display of simple sparklines beside each name in the select list, showing the normalized national popularity trends since 1910.
Doing an image request for every single name -- where hypothetically I've preconstructed the spark lines for every possible variant -- would slow the interface too much and yield a lot of unnecessary traffic as users quickly scroll and filter past hundreds of names they aren't interested in. Building sprites with sparklines for sets of names is a possibility, but again with tens of thousands of names, in the end the user's cache would be burdened with a lot of unnecessary information.
My goal is absolutely tuned minimalism.
Which got me contemplating the interesting challenge of taking M sets of data (occurrences over time) and distilling that to the most proximal N representative sparklines. For this purpose they don't have to be exact, but should be a general match, and where I could tune N to yield a certain accuracy number.
Essentially a form of sparkline lossy compression.
I feel like this most certainly is a solved problem, but can't find or resolve the heuristics that would yield the algorithms that would shorten the path.
What you describe seems to be cluster analysis - e.g. shoving that into Wikipedia will give you a starting point. Particular methods for cluster analysis include k-means and single linkage. A related topic is Latent Class Analysis.
If you do this, another option is to look at the clusters that come out, give them descriptive names, and then display the cluster names rather than inaccurate sparklines - or I guess you could draw not just a single line in the sparkline, but two or more lines showing the range of popularities seen within that cluster.
I am working through a particular type of code testing that is rather nettlesome and could be automated, yet I'm not sure of the best practices. Before describing the problem, I want to make clear that I'm looking for the appropriate terminology and concepts, so that I can read more about how to implement it. Suggestions on best practices are welcome, certainly, but my goal is specific: what is this kind of approach called?
In the simplest case, I have two programs that take in a bunch of data, produce a variety of intermediate objects, and then return a final result. When tested end-to-end, the final results differ, hence the need to find out where the differences occur. Unfortunately, even intermediate results may differ, but not always in a significant way (i.e. some discrepancies are tolerable). The final wrinkle is that intermediate objects may not necessarily have the same names between the two programs, and the two sets of intermediate objects may not fully overlap (e.g. one program may have more intermediate objects than the other). Thus, I can't assume there is a one-to-one relationship between the objects created in the two programs.
The approach that I'm thinking of taking to automate this comparison of objects is as follows (it's roughly inspired by frequency counts in text corpora):
For each program, A and B: create a list of the objects created throughout execution, which may be indexed in a very simple manner, such as a001, a002, a003, a004, ... and similarly for B (b001, ...).
Let Na = # of unique object names encountered in A, similarly for Nb and # of objects in B.
Create two tables, TableA and TableB, with Na and Nb columns, respectively. Entries will record a value for each object at each trigger (i.e. for each row, defined next).
For each assignment in A, the simplest approach is to capture the hash value of all of the Na items; of course, one can use LOCF (last observation carried forward) for those items that don't change, and any as-yet unobserved objects are simply given a NULL entry. Repeat this for B.
Match entries in TableA and TableB via their hash values. Ideally, objects will arrive into the "vocabulary" in approximately the same order, so that order and hash value will allow one to identify the sequences of values.
Find discrepancies in the objects between A and B based on when the sequences of hash values diverge for any objects with divergent sequences.
Now, this is a simple approach and could work wonderfully if the data were simple, atomic, and not susceptible to numerical precision issues. However, I believe that numerical precision may cause hash values to diverge, though the impact is insignificant if the discrepancies are approximately at the machine tolerance level.
First: What is a name for such types of testing methods and concepts? An answer need not necessarily be the method above, but reflects the class of methods for comparing objects from two (or more) different programs.
Second: What are standard methods exist for what I describe in steps 3 and 4? For instance, the "value" need not only be a hash: one might also store the sizes of the objects - after all, two objects cannot be the same if they are massively different in size.
In practice, I tend to compare a small number of items, but I suspect that when automated this need not involve a lot of input from the user.
Edit 1: This paper is related in terms of comparing the execution traces; it mentions "code comparison", which is related to my interest, though I'm concerned with the data (i.e. objects) than with the actual code that produces the objects. I've just skimmed it, but will review it more carefully for methodology. More importantly, this suggests that comparing code traces may be extended to comparing data traces. This paper analyzes some comparisons of code traces, albeit in a wholly unrelated area of security testing.
Perhaps data-tracing and stack-trace methods are related. Checkpointing is slightly related, but its typical use (i.e. saving all of the state) is overkill.
Edit 2: Other related concepts include differential program analysis and monitoring of remote systems (e.g. space probes) where one attempts to reproduce the calculations using a local implementation, usually a clone (think of a HAL-9000 compared to its earth-bound clones). I've looked down the routes of unit testing, reverse engineering, various kinds of forensics, and whatnot. In the development phase, one could ensure agreement with unit tests, but this doesn't seem to be useful for instrumented analyses. For reverse engineering, the goal can be code & data agreement, but methods for assessing fidelity of re-engineered code don't seem particularly easy to find. Forensics on a per-program basis are very easily found, but comparisons between programs don't seem to be that common.
(Making this answer community wiki, because dataflow programming and reactive programming are not my areas of expertise.)
The area of data flow programming appears to be related, and thus debugging of data flow programs may be helpful. This paper from 1981 gives several useful high level ideas. Although it's hard to translate these to immediately applicable code, it does suggest a method I'd overlooked: when approaching a program as a dataflow, one can either statically or dynamically identify where changes in input values cause changes in other values in the intermediate processing or in the output (not just changes in execution, if one were to examine control flow).
Although dataflow programming is often related to parallel or distributed computing, it seems to dovetail with Reactive Programming, which is how the monitoring of objects (e.g. the hashing) can be implemented.
This answer is far from adequate, hence the CW tag, as it doesn't really name the debugging method that I described. Perhaps this is a form of debugging for the reactive programming paradigm.
[Also note: although this answer is CW, if anyone has a far better answer in relation to dataflow or reactive programming, please feel free to post a separate answer and I will remove this one.]
Note 1: Henrik Nilsson and Peter Fritzson have a number of papers on debugging for lazy functional languages, which are somewhat related: the debugging goal is to assess values, not the execution of code. This paper seems to have several good ideas, and their work partially inspired this paper on a debugger for a reactive programming language called Lustre. These references don't answer the original question, but may be of interest to anyone facing this same challenge, albeit in a different programming context.
All web developers run into this problem when the amount of data in their project grows, and I have yet to see a definitive, intuitive best practice for solving it. When you start a project, you often create forms with tags to help pick related objects for one-to-many relationships.
For instance, I might have a system with Neighbors and each Neighbor belongs to a Neighborhood. In version 1 of the application I create an edit user form that has a drop down for selecting users, that simply lists the 5 possible neighborhoods in my geographically limited application.
In the beginning, this works great. So long as I have maybe 100 records or less, my select box will load quickly, and be fairly easy to use. However, lets say my application takes off and goes national. Instead of 5 neighborhoods I have 10,000. Suddenly my little drop-down takes forever to load, and once it loads, its hard to find your neighborhood in the massive alphabetically sorted list.
Now, in this particular situation, having hierarchical data, and letting users drill down using several dynamically generated drop downs would probably work okay. However, what is the best solution when the objects/records being selected are not hierarchical in nature? In the past, of done this with a popup with a search box, and a list, but this seems clunky and dated. In today's web 2.0 world, what is a good way to find one object amongst many for ones forms?
I've considered using an Ajaxifed search box, but this seems to work best for free text, and falls apart a little when the data to be saved is just a reference to another object or record.
Feel free to cite specific libraries with generic solutions to this problem, or simply share what you have done in your projects in a more general way
I think an auto-completing text box is a good approach in this case. Here on SO, they also use an auto-completing box for tags where the entry already needs to exist, i.e. not free-text but a selection. (remember that creating new tags requires reputation!)
I personally prefer this anyways, because I can type faster than select something with the mouse, but that is programmer's disease I guess :)
Auto-complete is usually the best solution in my experience for searches, but only where the user is able to provide text tokens easily, either as part of the object name or taxonomy that contains the object (such as a product category, or postcode).
However this doesn't always work, particularly where 'browse' behavior would be more suitable - to give a real example, I once wrote a page for a community site that allowed a user to send a message to their friends. We used auto-complete there, allowing multiple entries separated by commas.
It works great when you know the names of the people you want to send the message to, but we found during user acceptance that most people didn't really know who was on their friend list and couldn't use the page very well - so we added a list popup with friend icons, and that was more successful.
(this was quite some time ago - everyone just copies Facebook now...)
Different methods of organizing large amounts of data:
Hierarchies
Spatial (geography/geometry)
Tags or facets
Different methods of searching large amounts of data:
Filtering (including autocomplete)
Sorting/paging (alphabetically-sorted data can also be paged by first letter)
Drill-down (assuming the data is organized as above)
Free-text search
Hierarchies are easy to understand and (usually) easy to implement. However, they can be difficult to navigate and lead to ambiguities. Spatial visualization is by far the best option if your data is actually spatial or can be represented that way; unfortunately this applies to less than 1% of the data we normally deal with day-to-day. Tags are great, but - as we see here on SO - can often be misused, misunderstood, or otherwise rendered less effective than expected.
If it's possible for you to reorganize your data in some relatively natural way, then that should always be the first step. Whatever best communicates the natural ordering is usually the best answer.
No matter how you organize the data, you'll eventually need to start providing search capabilities, and unlike organization of data, search methods tend to be orthogonal - you can implement more than one. Filtering and sorting/paging are the easiest, and if an autocomplete textbox or paged list (grid) can achieve the desired result, go for that. If you need to provide the ability to search truly massive amounts of data with no coherent organization, then you'll need to provide a full textual search.
If I could point you to some list of "best practices", I would, but HID is rarely so clear-cut. Use the aforementioned options as a starting point and see where that takes you.
I want to know the effective algorithms/data structures to identify the below information in streaming data.
Consider a real-time streaming data like twitter. I am mainly interested in the below queries rather than storing the actual data.
I need my queries to run on actual data but not any of the duplicates.
As I am not interested in storing the complete data, it will be difficult for me to identify the duplicate posts. However, I can hash all the posts and check against them. But I would like to identify near duplicate posts also. How can I achieve this.
Identify the top k topics being discussed by the users.
I want to identify the top topics being discussed by users. I don't want the top frequency words as shown by twitter. Instead I want to give some high level topic name of the most frequent words.
I would like my system to be real-time. I mean, my system should be able to handle any amount of traffic.
I can think of map reduce approach but I am not sure how to handle synchronization issues. For example, duplicate posts can reach different nodes and both of them could store them in the index.
In a typical news source, one will be removing any stop words in the data. In my system I would like to update my stop words list by identifying top frequent words across a wide range of topics.
What will be effective algorithm/data structure to achieve this.
I would like to store the topics over a period of time to retrieve interesting patterns in the data. Say, friday evening everyone wants to go to a movie. what will be the efficient way to store this data.
I am thinking of storing it in hadoop distributed file system, but over a period of time, these indexes become so large that I/O will be my major bottleneck.
Consider multi-lingual data from tweets around the world. How can I identify similar topics being discussed across a geographical area?
There are 2 problems here. One is identifying the language being used. It can be identified based on the person tweeting. But this information might affect the privacy of the users. Other idea, could be running it through a training algorithm. What is the best method currently followed for this. Other problem is actually looking up the word in a dictionary and associating it to common intermediate language like say english. How to take care of word sense disambiguation like a same word being used in different contests.
Identify the word boundaries
One possibility is to use some kind of training algorithm. But what is the best approach followed. This is some way similar to word sense disambiguation, because you will be able to identify word boundaries based on the actual sentence.
I am thinking of developing a prototype and evaluating the system rather than the concrete implementation. I think its not possible to scrap the real-time twitter data. I am thinking this approach can be tested on some data freely available online. Any ideas, where I can get this data.
Your feedback is appreciated.
Thanks for your time.
-- Bala
There are a couple different questions buried in here. I can't understand all that you're asking, but here's a the big one as I understand it: You want to categorize messages by topic. You also want to remove duplicates.
Removing duplicates is (relatively) easy. To remove "near" duplicates, you could first remove uninteresting parts from your data. You could start by removing capitalization and punctuation. You could also remove the most common words. Then you could add the resulting message to a Bloom filter. Hashing isn't good enough for Twitter, as the hashed messages wouldn't be much smaller than the full messages. You'd end up with a hash that doesn't fit in memory. That's why you'd use a Bloom filter instead. It might have to be a very large Bloom filter, but it will still be smaller than the hash table.
The other part is a difficult categorization problem. You probably do not want to write this part yourself. There are a number of libraries and programs available for categorization, but it might be hard to find one that fits your needs. An example is the Vowpal Wabbit project, which is a fast online algorithm for categorization. However, it only works on one category at a time. For multiple categories, you would have to run multiple copies and train them separately.
Identifying the language sounds less difficult. Don't try to do something smart like "training", instead put the most common words from each language in a dictionary. For each message, use the language whose words appeared most frequently.
If you want the algorithm to come up with categories on its own, good luck.
I'm not really sure if I'm answering your main question, but you could determine the similarity of two messages by calculating the Levenshtein distance between them. You can think of this as the "edit difference" between two strings (I.E., how many edits would need to be made to one, to convert it to the other).
Hello we have created a very similar demo using api.cortical.io functionality.
There you can create semantic fingerprints of each tweet. (you could also extract the top most keywords or some similar terms, that don't need to actually be part of the tweet).
We have used the fingerprints to filter the twitter stream based on content.
On twistiller.com you can see the result. The public 1% twitter stream is monitored for four different topic areas.
I have a database, consisting of a whole bunch of records (around 600,000) where some of the records have certain fields missing. My goal is to find a way to predict what the missing data values should be (so I can fill them in) based on the existing data.
One option I am looking at is clustering - i.e. representing the records that are all complete as points in some space, looking for clusters of points, and then when given a record with missing data values try to find out if there are any clusters that could belong in that are consistent with the existing data values. However this may not be possible because some of the data fields are on a nominal scale (e.g. color) and thus can't be put in order.
Another idea I had is to create some sort of probabilistic model that would predict the data, train it on the existing data, and then use it to extrapolate.
What algorithms are available for doing the above, and is there any freely available software that implements those algorithms (This software is going to be in c# by the way).
This is less of an algorithmic and more of a philosophical and methodological question. There are a few different techniques available to tackle this kind of question. Acock (2005) gives a good introduction to some of the methods. Although it may seem that there is a lot of math/statistics involved (and may seem like a lot of effort), it's worth thinking what would happen if you messed up.
Andrew Gelman's blog is also a good resource, although the search functionality on his blog leaves something to be desired...
Hope this helps.
Acock (2005)
http://oregonstate.edu/~acock/growth-curves/working%20with%20missing%20values.pdf
Andrew Gelman's blog
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/
Dealing with missing values is a methodical question that has to do with the actual meaning of the data.
Several methods you can use (detailed post on my blog):
Ignore the data row. This is usually done when the class label is missing (assuming you data mining goal is classification), or many attributes are missing from the row (not just one). However you'll obviously get poor performance if the percentage of such rows is high
Use a global constant to fill in for missing values. Like "unknown", "N/A" or minus infinity. This is used because sometimes is just doesnt make sense to try and predict the missing value. For example if you have a DB if, say, college candidates and state of residence is missing for some, filling it in doesn't make much sense...
Use attribute mean. For example if the average income of a US family is X you can use that value to replace missing income values.
Use attribute mean for all samples belonging to the same class. Lets say you have a cars pricing DB that, among other things, classifies cars to "Luxury" and "Low budget" and you're dealing with missing values in the cost field. Replacing missing cost of a luxury car with the average cost of all luxury cars is probably more accurate then the value you'd get if you factor in the low budget cars
Use data mining algorithm to predict the value. The value can be determined using regression, inference based tools using Baysian formalism , decision trees, clustering algorithms used to generate input for step method #4 (K-Mean\Median etc.)
I'd suggest looking into regression and decision trees first (ID3 tree generation) as they're relatively easy and there are plenty of examples on the net.
As for packages, if you can afford it and you're in the Microsoft world look at SQL Server Analysis Services (SSAS for short) that implement most of the mentioned above.
Here are some links to free data minning software packages:
WEKA - http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka/index.html
ORANGE - http://www.ailab.si/orange
TANAGRA - http://eric.univ-lyon2.fr/~ricco/tanagra/en/tanagra.html
Although not C# he's a pretty good intro to decision trees and baysian learning (using Ruby):
http://www.igvita.com/2007/04/16/decision-tree-learning-in-ruby/
http://www.igvita.com/2007/05/23/bayes-classification-in-ruby/
There's also this Ruby library that I find very useful (also for learning purposes):
http://ai4r.rubyforge.org/machineLearning.html
There should be plenty of samples for these algorithms online in any language so I'm sure you'll easily find C# stuff too...
Edited:
Forgot this in my original post. This is a definately MUST HAVE if you're playing with data mining...
Download Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Data Mining Add-ins for Microsoft Office 2007 (It requires SQL Server Analysis Services - SSAS - which isn't free but you can download a trial).
This will allow you to easily play and try out the different techniques in Excel before you go and implement this stuff yourself. Then again, since you're in the Microsoft ecosystem, you might even decide to go for an SSAS based solution and count on the SQL Server guys to do it for ya :)
Predicting missing values is generally considered to be part of data cleansing phase which needs to be done before the data is mined or analyzed further. This is quite prominent in real world data.
Please have a look at this algorithm http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0701152
Currently Microsoft SQL Server Analysis Services 2008 also comes with algorithms like these http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms175312.aspx which help in predictive modelling of attributes.
cheers