Archives For Data Science

This section is dedicated to burgeoning field of data science and its applications

Ever wonder what your own personal network looks like?  You are likely connected to many different groups (family, friends, community, work), but do you know how they are connected?  Or are they connected at all?  Are you the glue that connects these various groups?

Word Cloud

This is a great age we’re living in, and I’m glad to be involved with developing lots of really advanced technologies.  One of the technology areas that I’m really fascinated with has been pushed forward by Stephen Wolfram.  He created the industry standard computing environment Mathematica, which now serves as the engine behind his company’s newest creation, Wolfram|Alpha.  (I’ve written a few posts on Wolfram|Alpha in the past, and you can read them here and here).

One feature that they’ve recently added to Wolfram|Alpha is the ability to analyze your Facebook data.  Usually, if you use Facebook, you only focus on the posts your friends make – pictures from their great vacations, LOLcats, or sharing articles for other websites (like this one!)  However, here are three reasons why it might be worth it for you to unlock these insights from Facebook:

  • It gives you insight into your connections and their connections.   For example, I happen to have a number of groups that I’m connected with.  Some are work-related (Areté and Mentor Graphics), some are community-related (Thousand Oaks), some are from where I grew up (Brillion and Virden), and others are politically-related (Ross Perot).  With this view of what’s called your social graph, you can see a view of who you are, based on looking at who you’re connected with.
  • Social Network

  • You learn about yourself.  Getting your Facebook report through Wolfram|Alpha is kind of like looking in a different type of mirror.  You get to see yourself through your own data; it can help you improve in areas where you want to see improvement – I even wrote a post about why it can be good to collect data on yourself.
  • It’s fun.  Viewing yourself in different ways can be interesting and fun!  Sometimes it takes these different views to really understand who you are and how you got here.

If you’re interested in unlocking your Facebook data using Wolfram|Alpha, here are some simple steps:

  • Go to www.wolframalpha.com.  It looks very much like the Google search page with a single bar for entering text
  • Type in “facebook report” or you can click on the stylized Facebook icon.
  • Wolfram|Alpha will then ask you to click “Analyze My Facebook Data”
Once you’ve done this, Wolfram|Alpha will generate a long report, giving you many views on your data and yourself. If you’re interested, there is a post from the Wolfram|Alpha blog that explains these new features and another good article to read from NBCNews.com.
Mic Farris Facebook Report

New technology is allowing us to see more views of ourselves for self-improvement and for entertainment.  Take some time and use Wolfram|Alpha to learn a little more about yourself.

Question:  Have you ever used Wolfram|Alpha?  Are there any other tools you find interesting in looking at your own social network?  You can leave a comment below.

Imagine a guy with glasses who used to model baseball stats and play online poker nailing the outcome of the 2012 elections. And when I say “nailing”, I mean that he correctly predicted the U.S. Presidential contest in every one of the 50 states (and nearly every U.S. Senate race, too). He even performed better than some of the most widely-used polling firms. Now imagine that he gives his thoughts on making these types of predictions. That’s exactly what Nate Silver does in his new book The Signal and the Noise.

Nate-Silver-book
I’ve worked in what’s now being called “data science” for nearly twenty years. The title of Silver’s book – The Signal and the Noise – presents an important and sometimes overlooked part of this science. The “signal” is what we’re looking for in the data, and the “noise” is all the stuff in the data that gets in the way of what we’re looking for.

With companies like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Netflix delivering new products based on data, more attention is now being focused on what we can learn from all this new information. Political polling has been around for a while, but Silver managed to take these scientific principles and apply them in a new way, leading to results that are astonishing to most people. Silver ended up beating some of the oldest and most storied polling firms, such as Gallup, highlighting real biases in their polling (for example, Gallup performed poorly for the third straight national election, and Silver noted that Gallup polls were biased toward Republicans by as many as 7 percentage points).

In his book, Silver focuses on how these techniques can be applied in nearly every area of forecasting from baseball to poker to weather forecasting to earthquake predictions. He does focus on some technical things (such as Bayesian reasoning), but does a good job of not letting that get in the way of his story. More broadly, here are four points that I thought come out of Silver’s book:

  1. You can make better decisions if you get more information. Silver pooled together the predictions from over 20 polls into one larger and more accurate prediction for the presidential election. He also points out in his book how new information can be used to update our own predictions.

  2. There’s a lot we don’t know, but don’t let that stop you. When we get information and then make decisions, there’s always a chance we’re going to be wrong because we don’t know everything. Many people, including Silver, call this uncertainty. We have to learn to live with uncertainty, and make the best decision possible.

  3. Be aware of your own bias. Gallup didn’t recognize that their polling techniques led to errors in their own predictions. Now they have to regroup in the wake of Silver’s successes. We need to be open to the information that’s in front of us and be aware of what information we may not be getting.

  4. Humility leads to better decisions. If we are humble, we will be aware of any unintended biases and we will recognize the uncertainty before us. As it turns out, this is the best anyone can do in making decisions.
So if we’re honest with ourselves and the information we are gathering, we can make better decisions and learn from any missed predictions. In life, we have to be willing to learn, try, and learn again.

If you’re interested in learning more about Silver’s take on statistical reasoning, I would highly recommend reading his new book. I received the book as a Christmas gift from my wife, and I’m glad I got the chance to read it.

Question: Have you read The Signal and the Noise? If so, what did you learn from Silver’s book? You can leave a comment below.

60 Minutes aired a piece last night about scientific fraud at Duke University, where data was fabricated in order to support alleged discoveries in individualized cancer therapies.  As a result of these investigations, a number of previously published scientific articles have been retracted.

Less than a week ago, I highlighted an infographic from Jen Rhee about the alarming statistics in science fraud.  I’m really disheartened that such a highly visible example came up so quickly… 

In the 60 Minutes piece, it seems clear that the fraud came from one scientist, Dr. Anil Potti, but there were some checks and balances that weren’t in place that created the circumstances.  When the research was published, many labs tried to reproduce the results, and two researchers at the University of Texas, Kevin Coombes and Keith Baggerly, began analyzing Dr. Potti’s data to verify his results.  What they found could only be explained through deliberate manipulation of the data, starting off a chain of events that led to retractions from Duke researchers, suspension of grants, and the eventual suspension of Dr. Potti from the Duke staff.

It took a dedicated newsletter, The Cancer Letter, to discover that Dr. Potti even falsified his own credentials, stating that he received a Rhodes Scholarship when he in fact did not, and trigger a thorough examination.  Unfortunately, Duke did not have enough institutional checks in place to catch this on their own. 

It was nice to see that the primary researcher in charge of the lab, Dr. Joseph Nevins, came out and took responsibility to the episode.  When Dr. Nevins was asked, after reviewing the original data to see if it had been fabricated, he said it was “abundantly clear” that it had.

Look – people make mistakes, even scientists when they are trying to analyze data and draw conclusions.  The scientific process is all about trying to find the truth, and being willing to accept the truth, even if it’s different than you’d like the truth to be.

But, as I said in my previous post on this type of fraud,

Real scientists… care about what the data is actually saying and discovering the truth.  When someone cares about something else other than the truth (money, celebrity, fame, etc.), then bad science is what you get.  Of course, when there are people involved, sometimes the truth isn’t the top priority.

The real tragedy is that people were affected and possibly harmed as a result of this fraud.   The fabricated data was used to validate a theory, which led to medical therapies that went through clinical trials, meaning that real people could have been given medicine that very well may have done harm to them.  As Dr. Coombes said during the 60 Minutes piece:

… you would be giving patients drugs that would definitely not benefit them.  So there’s clear potential for harm there.

Bad science should be rooted out, and good science needs to be advocated everywhere.  The truth is important and worth finding…

 

Stephen Wolfram is doing it again.  I’m a big fan of Wolfram (you can read some of my other posts here, here, and here…), and am always intrigued by what he comes up with.  A couple of days ago, Wolfram launched his latest contribution to data science and computational understanding – Wolfram|Alpha Pro

Here’s an overview of what the new Pro version of Wolfram|Alpha can provide:

With Wolfram|Alpha Pro, you can compute with your own data. Just input numeric or tabular data right in your browser, and Pro will automatically analyze it—effortlessly handling not just pure numbers, but also dates, places, strings, and more.

Upload 60+ types of data, sound, text, and other files to Wolfram|Alpha Pro for automatic analysis and computation. CSV, XLS, TXT, WAV, 3DS, HDF, GXL, XML…

Zoom in to see the details of any output—rendering it at a larger size and higher resolution.

Perform longer computations as a Wolfram|Alpha Pro subscriber by requesting extra time on the Wolfram|Alpha compute servers when you need it.

Licenses of prototying and analysis software go for several thousand dollars (Matlab, IDL, even Mathematica) - student versions can be had for a few hundred dollars, but you can’t leverage data science for business purposes on student licenses.

Wolfram|Alpha Pro lets anyone with a computer, an internet connection, and a small budget to leverage the power of data science.  Right now, you can get a free trial subscription, and from there, the costs are $4.99/month.  This price is introductory, but it could be sedutive enough to attract a lot of users (I’ve already signed up – all you need for the free trial is an e-mail address…)

One option that I find really interesting is Wolfram’s creation of the Computable Document Format (CDF), which interactivity lets you get dynamic versions of existing Wolfram|Alpha output as well as access to new content using interactive controls, 3D rotation, and animation.  It’s like having Wolfram|Alpha is embedded in the document.

I had attended a Wolfram Science Conference back in 2006 and saw the potential for such a document format back then.  There were a number of presenters who later wrote up their work into a paper, published by the journal Complex Systems.  Since many of the presentations utilized a real interactivity with the data, I could see where much of the insight would be lost when people tried to write things down and limit their visualizations to simple, static graphs and figures.

I remember contacting Jean Buck at Wolfram Research, and recommending such a format.  Who knows whether that had any impact, but I’m certainly glad to see that this is finally becoming a reality.  I actually got the opportunity to meet Wolfram at the conference (he even signed a copy of his Cellular Automata and Complexity for me… – Jean was kind enough to arrange that for me – thanks, Jean!)

If you’re interested in data science and have a spare $5 this month, try out Wolfram|Alpha Pro!

Bad Science

2012/02/07 — 1 Comment

Jen Rhee has done some great homework on bad science and put them into a cool infographic that’s worth looking at.  Here are some of the highlights from her research into bad science:

  • 1 in 3 scientists admit to using questionable research practices
  • 1 in 50 admits falsifying or fabricating data outright
  • Among biomedical researcher trainees at UC-San Diego, 81% said they would modify or fabricate results to win a grant or publish a paper

This is obvious disturbing, and worth highlighting to try and root these things out.  Science is about finding the truth – no matter what it is – and as more businesses start using data science in order to drive business outcomes, we need to make sure that science is about being honest – with the truth and with ourselves.

The scientific method was developed to provide the best way to figure out what the truth is, given the data we’ve got.  It doesn’t make perfect decisions (no method can), but it’s the best method available.

Real scientists (the ones not highlighted in Jen’s research) care about what the data is actually saying and discovering the truth.  When someone cares about something else other than the truth (money, celebrity, fame, etc.), then bad science is what you get.  Of course, when there are people involved, sometimes the truth isn’t the top priority.

Great infographic, Jen!  You can find it here

Here are some interesting data science nuggets that I thought were interesting for a mid-January day…

The first comes from TechMASH about data science being the next big thing.  The primary nugget of note is that the supply of employees with the needed skills as data scientists – those people who really understand how to pull relevant information out of data reliably – is going to have a tough time meeting demand.  Here’s an interesting infographic on the current disconnects – for example, while 37% of “business intelligence” professional studied business in school, 42% of today’s “data scientists” studied computer science, engineering, and natural sciences.  This highlights the increasing demand for students that have solid mathematics backgrounds – it’s becoming more about knowing how you pull information from data, regardless of application.

Don’t get me wrong – to be effective applying data science, you need two things:  a subject matter expert that understands what makes sense and what doesn’t, and someone who really understands data to pull out the information.  Sometimes that can reside within one person, but it’s rare and takes many years of training to acquire the necessary excellence in both fields.   And as the demands for data analysis grow, these two areas will likely form into distinct disciplines with interesting partnership opportunities being created.

The definition of data science is still being defined, but I’m convinced it will have huge impact in the next five years.  And while the science aspects of data are starting to be defined, the engineering aspects of data and analytics are truly in their infancy…

On the same thread, here’s a Forbes article by Tom Groenfeldt on the need for data scientists, or Excel jockeys, or whatever they will be called in the future.  For some companies, the move to “data science” is quite apparent, but for others, the current assemblance of business professionals that have figured out the ins-and-outs of Excel spreadsheets work quite well.  This is likely a snapshot of where things are today, but I do believe that as the questions we ask of the data get more complicated, we will clearly see the need for a more rigorous science-based discipline to data wrangling…

The last tidbit is from the Wall Street Journal about the healthcare field being the next big area for Big Data.  I do think that healthcare is ripe for leveraging data, and I’ve written other posts on the subject.  One former Chief Medical Officer that I spoke with mentioned that one of the big problems is just getting the data useable in the first place.  He said that, as of today, 85% of all medical records are still in paper form.  The figure seems a bit high to me, but I don’t really know how many patient records in various individual doctor’s offices are still sitting in folders on shelves. 

There has been a big push lately, spurred by financial support from the U.S government, for upgrading to electronic health records (EHR).   This will help to solve the data collection problem – if you can’t get data into an electronic format, you can’t utilize information technologies to pull information out of the data.

I ran across this article from the Independent today about the impacts of data algorithms, the ethics of data mining, and the future of our lives in an automated, data-crunching world.  Below is a quote from the article by Jaron Lanier, musician, computer scientist and author of the bestseller You Are Not a Gadget.

Algorithms themselves are a form of creativity. The problem is the illusion that they’re free-standing. If you start to think that information isn’t just a mask behind which people are hiding, if you forget that, you’ll pay a price for that way of thinking. It will cause you to be less creative.

If you show me an algorithm that dehumanises, impoverishes, manipulates or spies upon people,” he continues, “that same core maths can be applied differently. In every case. Take Facebook’s new Timeline feature [a diary-style way of displaying personal information]. It’s an idea that has been proposed since the 1980s [by Lanier himself]. But there are two problems with it. One, it’s owned by Facebook; what happens if Facebook goes bankrupt? Your life disappears – that’s weird. And two, it becomes fodder for advertisers to manipulate you. That’s creepy. But its underlying algorithms, if packaged in a different way, could be wonderful because they address a human cognitive need.

I think this is a really great read for anyone who’s interested in data, algorithms, and their impact on society – there’s a lot of really good stuff to take in.  You can read the entire article here

This is the very question asked by Colin Hill, CEO and co-founder of GNS Healthcare, a healthcare analytics company.  Hill hopes to make the case that healthcare can benefit from what a recent McKinsey report calls “the next frontier for innovation, competition and productivity.”  

I think Hill is onto something, especially with this insight:

What will healthcare look like in the year 2020?  One thing is certain: we can’t afford its current trajectory.  Left unchecked, our $2.6 trillion in annual spending will grow to $4.6 trillion by 2020, one-fifth of GDP.  With almost 80 million Baby Boomers approaching retirement, economists forecast these trends will likely bankrupt Medicare and Medicaid in the near future.  And while healthcare reform ignites a number of important changes, alone it does not resolve our issues.  It’s critical we fix our system now.

Something’s got to give, and better decisions from better data can yield significant healthcare savings if done right.  Saving lives and reducing costs dramatically in healthcare would qualify as one of those hard problems where disciplined approaches can yield significant results.  Here is Hill’s post on Forbes…

I ran across this interview by Fast Company with LinkedIn co-founder about his new book The Start-Up of You and the need for companies to have a data strategy, or risk losing “potentially a lot” in the future.  Here’s that brief bit from the Hoffman interview:

What do companies miss out on if they don’t have a data strategy?

Potentially a lot. If you say the way our products and services are constituted, how we determine our strategy and maintain a competitive edge against other folks–if data is a very strong element of each of these, and you’re not doing anything, it’s like trying to run a business without business intelligence. I’m not sure I have a broad enough view that I would say every company needs to have a data strategy. But I would say many companies do. I certainly think that any company that is over 20 people needs to have a technology strategy, and data is essential to where technology is going.

LinkedIn has already been on record as not worrying about Facebook taking over their business.  According to Hoffman, “People with advanced degrees are three times more likely to use LinkedIn.”

You can read the Fast Company interview here

Are banks predicting divorces?  Well, if there’s data to help them predict such things, they may very well use it to optimize their business.

Forbes has a couple of posts that peek into businesses use of “big data”.  The first article talks about the race to build new analytics to solve challenges of large volumes of data.  Here’s a snippet from Tom Groenfeldt‘s post, quoting Scott Gnau, head of research and development at Teradata:

Thought leaders in a number of industries are starting to leverage the additional analytic content from big data and combine it with what they have in large volume data stores as well. It is interesting to understand social media and consumer sentiment, but when that information is analyzed in combination with traditional consumer data it provides new, rich intelligence helping companies to identify trends and react to immediate business conditions.

According to another Forbes article, there are a number of studies that show that companies that characterize themselves as ”data driven” as the best corporate performers.  Now, when we’re talking “data driven”, we mean in how the company operates, not necessarily in what it produces as technology.  Top performing companies are determined to use the data that they have (especially about themselves) to improve what they do and how they do it. 

Also, banks are on the lookout for changes that could affect how they do business with their customers, and of course, their bottom line:

Banks, for example, worry about their customers divorcing, because divorce causes a change in credit-worthiness. No problem. They can now see a divorce coming before the couple does. All from the data.

As part of the “Computer Science or Data Science” panel at Techonomy 2011 in Tucson, AZ this week, the panel explored how data science has taken its place next to computer science as a fundamental element of information technology.  New technologies are coming out seemingly every day, not only to handle big data, but to understand how to extract relevant information from the ocean of data we’re swimming in.

A company in Silicon Valley, ai-one, announced today that they have “a breakthrough method to graphically represent knowledge enables software developers to easily build intelligent agents such as Apple’s SIRI and IBM Watson”.  The technology, ai-Fingerprint, is geared toward natural language programming, allowing developers to create new technologies that use natural language as input data.  

Apple’s Siri and IBM’s Watson are definitely heading in the right direction for this type of technology.  I just bought an iPhone 4S and I’ve tested Siri out a number of times.  While Siri doesn’t get everything right (it keeps thinking my name is “Nick” when I say “Mic”), it does get more right than I expected.  I was able to send texts and e-mails to people without keystrokes, and I took some notes using the voice feature, getting nearly every word correct.  Pretty amazing stuff!…

Watson is the supercomputer that beat two longtime Jeopardy! champions, and it uses a technology approach that looks for the best answer for the questions being asked (or in this case, the best question for the answer being presented – it is Jeopardy! after all…).  These are definitely the models that should be emulated; although, ai-one’s announcement is a press release so before we see the results, let’s chalk this up at the moment as good marketing…