Augmenting Data Beats Better Algorithms

eldavojohn writes "A teacher is offering empirical evidence that when you're mining data, augmenting data is better than a better algorithm. He explains that he had teams in his class enter the Netflix challenge, and two teams went two different ways. One team used a better algorithm while the other harvested augmenting data on movies from the Internet Movie Database. And this team, which used a simpler algorithm, did much better — nearly as well as the best algorithm on the boards for the $1 million challenge. The teacher relates this back to Google's page ranking algorithm and presents a pretty convincing argument. What do you think? Will more data usually perform better than a better algorithm?"

Comments

Hold on a sec...

[peacefinder]

"What do you think? Will more data usually perform better than a better algorithm?"

I need more data.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

you guys are nothing more than glorified engineers. Computer scientists are not glorified engineers. They're the butt of engineers' jokes too.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[Freeside1]

Say what you want about computer scientists, but without them you'd probably be complaining on a chalkboard.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[jank1887]

Mathematics is physics without purpose, Chemistry is physics without thought, Engineering is physics - CliffsNotes edition.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[JasonKChapman]

Mathematics is physics without purpose, Chemistry is physics without thought, Engineering is physics

Mathematics is physics without purpose, Chemistry is physics without thought, Engineering is physics without tenure.

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[Arthur B.]

"machine learning" is just statistical inference

Riiiht. And mathematical research is just finding a Hamiltonian cycle in a graph defined by the set of axioms used.

Re:Um, Yes?

[canajin56]

I think we need much, much more rigorous definitions of "more data" and "better algorithm" in order to discuss this in any meaningful way.

So what you are saying is, to answer the question, we need more data?

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing compared to physicists. When was the last time you guys got a multibillion dollar facility to discover (if you're lucky) a few other particles nobody gives a rat's ass about?

Re:attn computer scientists: stop renaming stuff

[mollymoo]

i know you computer scientists like playing mathematician, but there's a reason why you're the butt of mathematicians jokes. because you guys are nothing more than glorified engineers.

Adapted from a joke I saw on Jester the other day:

A physicist, a computer scientist and a mathematician are sharing a hotel room. It must have bad wiring or something.

Late at night when they're all asleep a small fire starts in the room. The smell of smoke wakes the physicist. He gets up, notices the fire and looking round the room, sees a bucket and a sink. He calculates how much water will be required, fills the bucket with precisely that much, douses the flames and goes back to bed.

A little later, another small fire starts. This time the smell of smokes wakes the computer scientist. He wakes up and sees the flames. He looks around and sees the bucket and the sink. He reasons that calculating the quantity of water required would take at least as long as filling the bucket, so he fills it right up, douses the flames and goes back to bed.

Again there is a fire. This time the mathematician smells the smoke and wakes up. He sees the flames, sees the bucket and the sink. He exclaims "there is a solution!" and goes back to bed.