Cookies help us display personalized product recommendations and ensure you have great shopping experience.

By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
SmartData CollectiveSmartData Collective
  • Analytics
    AnalyticsShow More
    media monitoring
    Signals In The Noise: Using Media Monitoring To Manage Negative Publicity
    5 Min Read
    data analytics
    How Data Analytics Can Help You Construct A Financial Weather Map
    4 Min Read
    financial analytics
    Financial Analytics Shows The Hidden Cost Of Not Switching Systems
    4 Min Read
    warehouse accidents
    Data Analytics and the Future of Warehouse Safety
    10 Min Read
    stock investing and data analytics
    How Data Analytics Supports Smarter Stock Trading Strategies
    4 Min Read
  • Big Data
  • BI
  • Exclusive
  • IT
  • Marketing
  • Software
Search
© 2008-25 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Reading: When sharing isn’t a good idea
Share
Notification
Font ResizerAa
SmartData CollectiveSmartData Collective
Font ResizerAa
Search
  • About
  • Help
  • Privacy
Follow US
© 2008-23 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
SmartData Collective > Big Data > Data Mining > When sharing isn’t a good idea
Data Mining

When sharing isn’t a good idea

TimManns
TimManns
6 Min Read
SHARE

Ensemble models seem to be all the buzz at the moment. The NetFlix prize was won by a conglomerate of various models and approaches that each excelled in subsets of the data.

A number of data miners have presented findings based upon using simple ensembles that use the mean prediction of a number of models. I was surprised that some form of weighting isn’t commonly used, and that a simple mean average of multiple models could yield such an improvement in the global predictive power. It kinda reminds me of Gestalt theory phrase “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” It’s got me thinking, when it is best not to share predictive power. What if one model is the best? There is also a ton of considerations regarding scalability and trade-off between additional processing, added business value, and practicality (don’t mention random forests to me…), but we’re pretend those don’t exist for the purpose of this discussion 🙂

So this has got me thinking do ensembles work best in situations where there are clearly different sub-populations of customers. For example, Netflix is in the retail space, with many customers that rent the same popular blockbuster movies, and a moderate .. …



Ensemble models seem to be all the buzz at the moment. The NetFlix prize was won by a conglomerate of various models and approaches that each excelled in subsets of the data.

More Read

Al Ries talks to Tom H. C. Anderson about Marketing…
A nugget from our webinar with Bill Leake from Apogee-Search
A reader asks – how to document decision logic
SAS , R and NYT – The Sequel
Positioning your Database Start Up for Data Warehousing

A number of data miners have presented findings based upon using simple ensembles that use the mean prediction of a number of models. I was surprised that some form of weighting isn’t commonly used, and that a simple mean average of multiple models could yield such an improvement in the global predictive power. It kinda reminds me of Gestalt theory phrase “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.” It’s got me thinking, when it is best not to share predictive power. What if one model is the best? There is also a ton of considerations regarding scalability and trade-off between additional processing, added business value, and practicality (don’t mention random forests to me…), but we’re pretend those don’t exist for the purpose of this discussion 🙂

So this has got me thinking do ensembles work best in situations where there are clearly different sub-populations of customers. For example, Netflix is in the retail space, with many customers that rent the same popular blockbuster movies, and a moderate number of customers that rent rarer (or far more diverse, i.e., long tail) movies. I haven’t looked at the Netflix data, so I’m guessing that most customers don’t have hundreds of transactions, so generalising the correct behaviour of the masses to specific customers is important. Netflix data on any specific customer could be quite scant (in terms of rents/transactions). In other industries such as telecom, there are parallels; customers can also be differentiated by nature of communication (voice calls, sms calls, data consumption etc) just like types of movies. Telecom is mostly about quantity though (customer x used to make a lot of calls etc). More importantly there is a huge amount of data about each customer, often with many hundreds of transactions per customer. There is therefore relatively lesser reliance upon supporting behaviour of the masses (although it helps a lot) to understand any specific customer.

Following this logic, I’m thinking that ensembles are great at reducing the error of incorrectly applying insights derived from the generalised masses to those weirdos that rent obscure sci-fi movies! Combining models that explain sub-populations very well makes sense, but what if you don’t have many sub-populations (or can identify and model their behaviour with one model).

But you may shout “hey, what about the KDD Cup.” Yes, the recent KDD Cup challenge (anonymous featureless telecom data from Orange) was also a won by an ensemble of over a thousand models created by IBM Research. I’d like to have had some information about what the hundreds of columns respresented, and this might have helped better understand the Orange data and build more insightful and performing models. Aren’t ensemble models used in this way simply a brute force approach to over learn the data? I’d also really like to know how the performance of the winning entry tracks over the subsequent months for Orange.

Well, I haven’t had a lot of success in using ensemble models in the telecom data I work with, and I’m hoping it is more a reflection of the data than any ineptitude on my part. I’ve tried simply building multiple models on the entire dataset and averaging the scores, but this doesn’t generate much additional improvement (granted on already good models, and I already combine K-means and Neural Nets on the whole base). During my free time I’m just starting to try splitting the entire customer base into dozens of small sub-populations and building a Neural Net model on each, then combining the results and seeing if that yields an improvement. It’ll take a while.

Thoughts?

Link to original post

Share This Article
Facebook Pinterest LinkedIn
Share

Follow us on Facebook

Latest News

data security issues with annotation outsourcing
Data Annotation Outsourcing and Risk Mitigation Strategies
Big Data Exclusive Security
NO-CODE
Breaking down SPARC Emulation Technology: Zero Code Re-write
Exclusive News Software
online business using analytics
Why Some Businesses Seem to Win Online Without Ever Feeling Like They Are Trying
Exclusive News
edi compliance with AI
AI Is Transforming EDI Compliance Services
Exclusive News

Stay Connected

1.2KFollowersLike
33.7KFollowersFollow
222FollowersPin

You Might also Like

Reference vs. Referral

4 Min Read
real estate investing analytics
Big DataData MiningExclusive

Using Skip Tracing and Data Mining to Find Off-Market Real Estate

9 Min Read

In A Down Economy, Companies Turn To Real-Time Analytics To Track Demand — Forecasting Demand

1 Min Read

Putting your ultimate asset to work with decision management

6 Min Read

SmartData Collective is one of the largest & trusted community covering technical content about Big Data, BI, Cloud, Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, IoT & more.

ai is improving the safety of cars
From Bolts to Bots: How AI Is Fortifying the Automotive Industry
Artificial Intelligence
ai chatbot
The Art of Conversation: Enhancing Chatbots with Advanced AI Prompts
Chatbots

Quick Link

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Follow US
© 2008-25 SmartData Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?