Given the recent explosion of interest in streaming data and online algorithms, clustering of time series
subsequences, extracted via a sliding window, has received much attention. In this work we make a
surprising claim. Clustering of time series subsequences is meaningless. More concretely, clusters extracted
from these time series are forced to obey a certain constraint that is pathologically unlikely to be satisfied by
any dataset, and because of this, the clusters extracted by any clustering algorithm are essentially random.
While this constraint can be intuitively demonstrated with a simple illustration and is simple to prove, it has
never appeared in the literature. We can justify calling our claim surprising, since it invalidates the
contribution of dozens of previously published papers. We will justify our claim with a theorem, illustrative
examples, and a comprehensive set of experiments on reimplementations of previous work. Although the
primary contribution of our work is to draw attention to the fact that an apparent solution to an important
problem is incorrect and should no longer be used, we also introduce a novel method which, based on the
concept of time series motifs, is able to meaningfully cluster subsequences on some time series datasets
By OMKAR MURALIDHARAN, NIALL CARDIN, TODD PHILLIPS, AMIR NAJMI
Given recent advances and interest in machine learning, those of us with traditional statistical training have had occasion to ponder the similarities and differences between the fields. Many of the distinctions are due to culture and tools, but there are also differences in thinking which run deeper. Take, for instance, how each field views the provenance of the training data when building predictive models. For most of ML, the training data is a given, often presumed to be representative of the data against which the prediction model will be deployed, but not much else. With a few notable exceptions, ML abstracts away from the data generating mechanism, and hence sees the data as raw material from which predictions are to be extracted. Indeed, machine learning generally lacks the vocabulary to capture the distinction between observational data and randomized data that statistics finds crucial. To contrast machine learning with statistics is not the object of this post (we can do such a post if there is sufficient interest). Rather, the focus of this post is on combining observational data with randomized data in model training, especially in a machine learning setting. The method we describe is applicable to prediction systems employed to make decisions when choosing between uncertain alternatives.
By PATRICK RILEY
For a number of years, I led the data science team for Google Search logs. We were often asked to make sense of confusing results, measure new phenomena from logged behavior, validate analyses done by others, and interpret metrics of user behavior. Some people seemed to be naturally good at doing this kind of high quality data analysis. These engineers and analysts were often described as “careful” and “methodical”. But what do those adjectives actually mean? What actions earn you these labels?
To answer those questions, I put together a document shared Google-wide which I optimistically and simply titled “Good Data Analysis.” To my surprise, this document has been read more than anything else I’ve done at Google over the last eleven years. Even four years after the last major update, I find that there are multiple Googlers with the document open any time I check.
Why has this document resonated with so many people over time? I think the main reason is that it’s full of specific actions to take, not just abstract ideals. I’ve seen many engineers and analysts pick up these habits and do high quality work with them. I’d like to share the contents of that document in this blog post.
The advice is organized into three general areas:
Technical: Ideas and techniques for how to manipulate and examine your data.
Process: Recommendations on how you approach your data, what questions to ask, and what things to check.
Social: How to work with others and communicate about your data and insights.
Apache Beam (incubating) is a unified batch and streaming data processing programming model that is efficient and portable. Beam evolved from a decade of system-building at Google, and Beam pipelines run today on both open source (Apache Flink, Apache Spark) and proprietary (Google Cloud Dataflow) runners. This talk will focus on I/O and connectors in Apache Beam, specifically its APIs for efficient, parallel, adaptive I/O. Google will discuss how these APIs enable a Beam data processing pipeline runner to dynamically rebalance work at runtime, to work around stragglers, and to automatically scale up and down cluster size as a job’s workload changes. Together these APIs and techniques enable Apache Beam runners to efficiently use computing resources without compromising on performance or correctness. Practical examples and a demonstration of Beam will be included.
Frances Perry from Google spoke about Apache Beam. Through deft animations, she showed attendees how the seemingly hard problem of managing batch and streaming data sets within a common framework and system can be solved with a unified API. She framed the problem around a set of constraints and requirements on latency, completeness, and cost. This system handles both batch and streaming use cases and neatly separates properties of the data from runtime characteristics, allowing pipelines to be portable across multiple runtime environments.
A useful definition of “big data” is data that is too big to comfortably process on a single machine, either because of processor, memory, or disk bottlenecks. Graphics processing units can alleviate the processor bottleneck, but memory or disk bottlenecks can only be eliminated by splitting data across multiple machines. Communication between large numbers of machines is expensive (regardless of the amount of data being communicated), so there is a need for algorithms that perform distributed approximate Bayesian analyses with minimal communication. Consensus Monte Carlo operates by running a separate Monte Carlo algorithm on each machine, and then averaging individual Monte Carlo draws across machines. Depending on the model, the resulting draws can be nearly indistinguishable from the draws that would have been obtained by running a single machine algorithm for a very long time. Examples of consensus Monte Carlo are shown for simple models where single-machine solutions are available, for large single-layer hierarchical models, and for Bayesian additive regression trees (BART).
‘Alice’ is submitting one web search per five minutes, for three hours in a row−is it normal? How to detect abnormal search behaviors, among Alice and other users? Is there any distinct pattern in Alice’s (or other users’) search behavior? We studied what is probably the largest, publicly available, query log, containing more than 30 million queries from 0.6 million users. In this paper, we present a novel, user-and group-level framework, M3A: Model, MetaModel and Anomaly detection. For each user, we discover and explain a surprising, bi-modal pattern of the inter-arrival time (IAT) of landed queries (queries with user click-through). Specifically, the model Camel-Log is proposed to describe such an IAT distribution; we then notice the correlations among its parameters at the group level. Thus, we further propose the metamodel Meta-Click, to capture and explain the two-dimensional, heavy-tail distribution of the parameters. Combining Camel-Log and Meta-Click, the proposed M3A has the following strong points: (1) the accurate modeling of marginal IAT distribution, (2) quantitative interpretations, and (3) anomaly detection.