Slashdot Mirror
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?"
I think it heavily depends on what you're kind of data your mining.
I worked for a while on the Netflix prize, and if there's one thing I learned it's that a recommender system almost always gets better the more data you put into it, so I'm not sure if this one case study is enough to apply the idea to all algorithms.
Though, in a way, this is sort of a "duh" result - data mining relies on lots of good data, and the more there is generally the better a fit you can make with your algorithm.
In problems like minimizing lateness et. al. "better" can be simply defined as "closer to optimal" or "fewer time units late."
Here, better means different things to different people. The more data you have gives you a larger set of people, and probably a more accurate definition of better for a larger set of people. I'm not sure you can really compare the two.
Of course. Why wouldn't more (or bettter) relevant data that applies on a case-y-case basis provide more improved results than a "improved algorithm" (what does that mean, really?) that applied generally and globally?
I think we need much, much more rigorous definitions of "more data" and "better algorithm" in order to discuss this in any meaningful way.
everything in moderation
Better data is probably most important and having more data makes having better data more likely. It would probably make sense to analyse the impact of each datum on the accuracy of the ruslt, then choose a better algorithm using the most influential data. That is, a simple algorithm on good data is better than a great algorithm on mediocre data.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
And the teams were identically talented? In my CS classes, I could have hand-picked teams that could make O(2^n) algorithms run quickly and others that could make O(1) take hours.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If more data is helpful, then Netflix is really hurting themselves with their 5-star rating system. I'd only give 5 stars to a really amazing movie, but to only give 3/5 stars to a movie I enjoyed feels too low. Many movies that range from a 7/10 to a 9/10 get lumped into that 4 star category, and the nuances of the data are lost.
How to translate the entire experience of watching a movie into a lone number is a separate issue.
You could also make an elaborate algorithm that uses user age, sex & location
Honestly, I could provide endless ideas for 'better algorithms' although I don't think any of them would even come close to matching what I could do with a database like IMDB. Hell, think of the Bayesian token analysis you could do on the reviews and message boards alone!
My work here is dung.
I have written two recommendations systems and have taken a crack at the Netflix prize (but have been hard pressed to make time for the serious work.)
The article is informative and generally correct, however, having done this sort of stuff on a few projects, I have some problems with the netflix data.
First, the data is bogus. The preferences are "aggregates" of rental behaviors, whole families are represented by single accounts. Little 16 year old Tod, likes different movies than his 40 year old dad. Not to mention his toddler sibling and mother. A single account may have Winnie the Pooh and Kill Bill. Obviously, you can't say that people who like Kill Bill tend to like Winnie the Pooh. (Unless of course there is a strange human behavioral factor being exposed by this, it could be that parents of young children want the thrill of vicarious killing, but I digress)
The IMDB information about genre is interesting as it is possibly a good way to separate some of the aggregation.
Recommendation systems tend to like a lot of data, but not what you think. People will say, if you need more data, why just have 1-5 and not 1-10? Well, that really isn't much more added data it is just greater granularity of the same data. Think of it like "color depth" vs "resolution" on a video monitor.
My last point about recommendations is that people have moods are are not as predictable as we may wish. On an aggregate basis, a group of people is very predictable. A single person setting his/her preferences one night may have had a good day and a glass of wine and numbers are higher. The next day could have had a crappy day and had to deal with it sober, the numbers are different.
You can't make a system that will accurately predict responses of a single specific individual at an arbitrary time. Let alone based on an aggregated data set. That's why I haven't put much stock in the Netflix prize. Maybe someone will win it, but I have my doubts. A million dollars is a lot of money, but there are enough vagaries in what qualifies as a success to make it a lottery or a sham.
That being said, the data is fun to work with!!
Two things. The first is that it is tritely obvious that adding more data improves your results. But there are two possible mechanisms at work. On the one hand add more of the same data ie. just make your original database larger with more entries. That form of augmentation will hopefully give you more insight into the underlying distribution of the data. On the other hand you can augment the existing data. In the latter you are really adding extra dimensions/features/attributes to the data set. That's what seems to be alluded to in the article i.e. the students are adding extra features to the original data set. The success of the technique is a trivial result which depends very much on whether the features you add are discriminating or not. In this case, the IMDB presumably added discriminating features. However, if it had not, then "improved algorithms" would have had the upper hand.
The second thing about the claim seems to be that there is always additional information actually available. The comment is made that academia and business don't seem to appreciate the value of augmenting the data. That is false. In business additional data is often just not available (physically or for cost reasons). Consequently, improving your algorithms is all you can do. Similarly in academia (say a computer science department) the assumption is often that you are trying to improve your algorithms while assuming that you have all the data available.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
And nonlinear dimensionality reduction is just nonconvex trace optimization coupled with kernel principal component analysis (fine, call it "singular value decomposition") using Mercer's theorem to map the resulting dot product through a kernel function (usually represented as a Hermitian positive semidefinite Gram matrix), yielding an inner product space of higher (possibly infinite) dimensionality in which the original problem is linearly separable.
Now take this description and write an algorithm that performs it efficiently. And you use PageRank as an example, so let's call "efficient" "performs as well as Google on the entire web's worth of data".
If you can't do this, perhaps you should reconsider your view of computer scientists. There's no reason whatsoever to play up the boundaries between two very related fields. Arbitrary boundaries in knowledge are already bad enough; they need to be knocked down, not reinforced.
Algorithms are ranked on their resource usage.
Not always. Approximation algorithms are often ranked on their accuracy. Online algorithms are often ranked on something called the competitive ratio. Randomized algorithms are usually ranked on their resource uses, but all three of these needn't be optimal (in the context of an optimization problem) -- or produce correct results (in the context of a decision problem).
Algorithms must have the same correct results by definition.
[citation needed]