## Monday, September 21, 2009

### Data Mining and Statistics

What is the difference between Data Mining and statistics and should I care?
The way I think about it, data mining is the process of using data to figure stuff out. Statistics is a collection of tools used for understanding data. We explicitly use statistical tools all the time to answer questions such as "is the observed change in conversion rate (or response, or order size, . . .) significant or might it be just due to chance?" We also use statistics implicitly when, for example, a chi-square test inside a decision tree algorithm decides which of several candidate splits will make it into a model. When I make a histogram showing number of orders by order size bin, I am really exploring a distribution although I may not choose to describe it that way. So, data miners use statistics and much of what statisticians do might be called data mining.

There is, however, a cultural difference between people who call themselves statisticians and people who call themselves data miners. This difference has its origins in different expectations about data size. Statistics grew up in an era of small data and many statisticians still live in that world. There are strong practical and budgetary limits to how many patients you can recruit for a clinical trial, for instance. Statisticians have to extract every last drop of information from their small data sets and so they have developed a lot of clever tools for doing that. Data Miners tend to live in a big data world. With big data, we can often replace cleverness with more data. Gordon's most recent post on oversampling is an example. If you have sufficient data that you can throw away most of the common cases and still have enough data to work with, that really is easier than keeping track of lots of weights. Similarly, with enough data, it is much easier (and more accurate) to estimate the probability that a subscriber will cancel with tenure of 100 days by counting the many people who do quit and dividing by the even larger number of people who could have quit but didn't, than to make some assumptions about the shape of the hazard function.

## Tuesday, September 15, 2009

If you don´t mind, I would like to ask you a Question regarding Oversampling as you wrote in your book (Mastering Data Mining...).

I can understand how you calculate predictive lift when using oversampling, though don´t know how to do it for the confusion matrix.

Would you mind telling me how do I compute then the confusion matrix for the actual population (not the oversampled set)?

Best,
Diego

Gentlemen-

I have severely unbalanced training data (180K negative cases, 430 positive cases). Yeah...very unbalanced.

I fit a model in a software program that allows instance weights (weka). I give all the positive cases a weight of 1 and all the negative cases a weight of 0.0024. I fit a model (not a decision tree so running the data through a test set is not an option to recalibrate) - like a neural network. I output the probabilities and they are out of whack - good for predicting the class or ranking but not for comparing predicted probability against actual.

What can we do to fit a model like this but then output probabilities that are in line with the distribution? Is this new (wrong) probabilities just the price we have to pay for instance weights to (1) get a model to build (2) get reasonably good classification? Can I have my cake and eat it too (classification and probs that are close to actual)?

Many many thanks!
Brian

The problem in these cases is the same. The goal is to predict a class, usually a binary class, where one outcome is rarer than the other. To generate the best model, some method of oversampling is used so the model set has equal numbers of the two outcomes. There are two common ways of doing this. Diego is probably using all the rare outcomes and an equal-sized random sample of the common outcomes. This is most useful when there are a large number of cases, and reducing the number of rows makes the modeling tools run faster. Brian is using a method where weights are used for the same purpose. Rare cases are given a weight of 1 and common cases are given a weight less than 1, so that the sum of the weights of the two groups is equal.

Regardless of the technique (neural network, decision trees, logistic regression, neearest neighbor, and so on), the resulting probabilities are "directionally" correct. A group of rows with a larger probability are more likey to have the modeled outcome than a group with a lower probability. This is useful for some purposes, such as getting the top 10% with the highest scores. It is not useful for other purposes, where the actual probability is needed.

Some tools can back into the desired probabilities, and do correct calculations for lift and for the confusion matrix. I think SAS Enterprise Miner, for instance, uses prior probabilties for this purpose. I say "think" because I do not actually use this feature. When I need to do this calculation, I do it manually, because not all tools support it. And, even if they do, why bother learning how. I can easily do the necessary calculations in Excel.

The key idea here is simply counting. Assume that we start with data that is 10% rare and 90% common, and we oversample so it is 50%-50%. The relationship between the original data and the model set is:
• rare outcomes: 10% --> 50%
• common outcomes: 90% --> 50%
To put it differently, each rare outcome in the original data is worth 5 in the model set. Each common outcome is worth 5/9 in the model set. We can call these numbers the oversampling rates for each of the outcomes.

We now apply these mappings to the results. Let's answer Brian's question for a particular situation. Say we have the above data and a result has a modeled probability of 80%. What is the actual probability?

Well, 25% means that there is 0.25 rare outcomes for 0.75 common ones. Let's undo the mapping above:
• 0.80 / 5 = 0.16
• 0.20 / (5/9) = 0.36
So, the expected probability on the original data is 0.16/(0.16+0.36) = 30.8%. Notice that the probability has decreased, but it is still larger than the 10% in the original data. Also notice that the lift on the model set is 80%/50% = 1.6. The lift on the original data is 3.08 (30.8% / 10%). The expected probability goes down, and the lift goes up.

This calculation can also be used for the cross-correlation matrix (or confusion matrix). In this case, you just have to divide each cell by the appropriate overampling rate. So, if the confusion matrix said:
• 10 rows in the model set are rare and classified as rare
• 5 rows in the model set are rare and classified as common
• 3 rows in the model set are common and classified as rare
• 12 rows in the model set are common and classified as common
(I apologize for not including a table, but that is more trouble than it is worth in the blog.)

In the original data, this means:
• 2=10/5 rows in the original data are rare and classified as rare
• 1=5/5 rows in the original data are rare and classified as common
• 5.4 = 3/(5/9) rows inthe original data are common and classified as rare
• 21.6 = 12/(5/9) rows in the original data are common and classified as common
These calculations are quite simple, and it is easy to set up a spreadsheet to do them.

I should also mention that this method readily works for any number of classes. Having two classes is simply the most common case.

## Thursday, September 10, 2009

### TDWI Question: Consolidating SAS and SPSS Groups

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of being on a panel for a local TDWI event here in New York focused on advanced analytics (thank you Jon Deutsch). Mark Madsen of Third Nature gave an interesting, if rapid-fire, overview of data mining technologies. Of course, I was excited to see that Mark included Data Analysis Using SQL and Excel as one of the first steps in getting started in data mining -- even before meeting me. Besides myself, the panel included my dear friend Anne Milley from SAS, Ali Pasha from Teradata, and a gentleman from Information Builders whose name I missed.

I found one of the questions from the audience to be quite interesting. The person was from the IT department of a large media corporation. He has two analysis groups, one in Los Angeles that uses SPSS and the other in New York that uses SAS. His goal, of course, is to reduce costs. He prefers to have one vendor. And, undoubtedly, the groups are looking for servers to run their software.

This is a typical IT-type question, particularly in these days of reduced budgets. I am more used to encountering such problems in the charged atmosphere of a client. The more relaxed atmosphere of a TDWI meeting perhaps gives a different perspective.

The groups are doing the same thing from the perspective of an IT director. Diving in a bit futher, the two groups do very different things -- at least from my perspective. Of course, both are using software running on computers to analyze data. The group in Los Angeles is using SPSS to analyze survey data. The group in New York is doing modeling using SAS. I should mention that I don't know anyone in the groups, and only have the cursory information provided at the TDWI conference.

Conflict Alert! Neither group wants to change and both are going to put up a big fight. SPSS has a stronghold in the market for analyzing survey data, with specialized routines and procedures to handle this data. (SAS probably has equivalent functionality, but many people who analyze survey data gravitate to SPSS.) Similarly, the SAS programmers in New York are not going to take kindly to switching to SPSS, even if offers the same functionality.

Each group has the skills and software that they need. Each group has legacy code and methods, that are likely tied to their tools. The company in question is not a 20-person start-up. It is a multinational corporation. Although the IT department might see standarizing a tool as beneficial, in actual fact, the two groups are doing different things and the costs of switching are quite high -- and might involve losing skilled people.

This issue brings up the question of what do we want to standardize on. The value of advanced analytics comes in two forms. The first is the creative process of identifying new and interesting phenomena. The second is the communication process of spreading the information where it is needed.

Although people may not think of nerds as being creative, really, we are. It is important to realize that imposing standards or limiting resources may limit creativity, and hence the quality of the results. This does not mean that cost control is unnecessary. Instead, it means that there are intangible costs that may not show up in a standard cost-benefit analysis.

On the other hand, communicating results through an organization is an area where standards are quite useful. Sometimes the results might be captured as a simple email going to the right person. Other times, the communication must go to a broader audience. Whether byy setting up an internal Wiki, updating model scores in a database, or loading a BI tool, having standards is important in this case. Many people are going to be involved, and these people should not have to learn special tools for one-off analyses -- so, if you have standardized on a BI tool, make the resources available to put in new results. And, from the perspective of the analysts, having standard methods of communicating results simplifies the process of transforming smart analyses into business value.

## Monday, September 7, 2009

### Principal Components: Are They A Data Mining Technique?

Principal components have been mentioned in passing several times in previous posts. However, I have not ever talked specifically about them, and their relationship to data mining in general.

What are principal components? There are two common definitions that I do not find particularly insightful. I repeat them here, mostly to illustrate the distance from important mathematical ideas and their application. The first definition is that the principal components are the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix of the variables. The eigenwhats of the what? Knowing enough German to understand that "eigen" means something like "inherent" does not really help in understanding this. An explanation of this -- with lots of mathematical symbols -- is available on Wikipedia. (And, it is not surprising that the inventor of covariance Karl Pearson also invented principal component analysis.)

The second definition (which is equivalent to the first) starts by imagining the data as points in space. Off all the possible lines in the space, the first principal component is the line that maximizes the variance of the points projected on the line (and also goes through the centroid of the data points). Points, lines, projections, centroids, variance -- that also sounds a bit academic. (By the way, for the seriously mathematically inclined, here are pointers to how these defintions are the same.)

I prefer a third, less commonly touted definition, which also assumes that data is spread out as points in space. Of all possible lines in space, the first principal component is the one that minimizes the square of the distance from each data point to the line. Hey, you may be asking, "isn't this the same as the ordinary least squares regression line?" The reason why I like this approach is because it compares principal components to something that almost everyone is familiar with -- the best-fit line. And that provides an opportunity to compare and contrast and learn.

The first difference between the two is both subtle and important. The best-fit line only looks at the distance from each data point to the line along one dimension; that is, the line minimizes the sum of the squares of the differences along the target dimension ("y"). The first principal component is looking at the sum of the squares of the overall distance. The "distance" in this case is the length of the shortest vector that connects each point to the line. In general, the best fit line and the first principal component, are not the same (and I'm curious if the angle between them might be useful). A little known factoid about best fit lines is worth dropping in here. Given a set of data points (x, y), the best fit line that fits y = f(x) is different from the best fit line that fits x = f(y). And the first principal component fits "between" these lines in some sense.

There is a corollary to this. For a best-fit line, one dimension is special, the "y" dimension, because that is how the distance is measured. This is typically the target dimension for a model, the values we want to predict. For the first principal component, there is no special dimension. Hence, principal components are most useful when applied only to input variables without the target. A major difference from best-fit lines.

For me, it makes intuitive sense that the line that best fits input values would be useful for analysis. And, it makes intuitive sense in a way that the eigen-whatevers of some matrix do not intuitively say "useful" or even that the line that maximizes the variance does not say "useful". Even though all are doing the same thing, some ways of explaining the concept seem more intuitive and applicable to data analysis.

Another difference from the best fit line involves what statisticians call residuals -- that is, the difference from each of the original data points to the corresponding point on the line. For a best-fit line, the residuals are simply numbers, the difference between the original "y" and the "y" on the line. For the first principal component, the residuals are vectors -- the vectors that connect each point perpendicularly to the line. These vectors can be plotted in space. And, given a bunch of points in space, we can calculate the principal component for them. This is the second principal component. And these have residuals, and the process can keep going, for a while, yielding the third principal component, and so on.

The first principal component and the second principal component have a very particular property; they are orthogonal to each other, which means that they meet at a right angle. In fact, all principal components are orthogonal to each other, and orthogonality is a good thing when working with input values for data. So, it is tempting to replace the data with the first few principal components. It is not only tempting, but this is often a successful way to reduce the number of variables used for analysis.

By the way, there are not an infinite number of principal components. The number of principal components is the dimensionality of the original data points -- which is never more than the number of variables that define each point.

There is much more to say about principal components. The original question asked whether they are part of data mining. I have never been particularly proud of what is and what is not data mining -- I'm happy to include anything useful for data analysis under the heading. Unlike other techniques, though, principal components are not a fancy method for building predictive or descriptive models. Instead, they are part of the arsenal of tools available for managing and massaging input variables to maximize their utility.