Machine Learning & Data Science

Linear Digressions - Old to New

Neural Nets

Linear Digressions

Machine learning and particle physics go together like peanut butter and jelly--but this is a relatively new development.  

For many decades, physicists looked through their fairly large datasets using the laws of physics to guide their exploration; that tradition continues today, but as ever-larger datasets get made, machine learning becomes a more tractable way to deal with the deluge.  

With this in mind, ATLAS (one of the major experiments at CERN, the European Center for Nuclear Research and home laboratory of the recently discovered Higgs boson) ran a machine learning contest over the summer, to see what advances could be found from opening up the dataset to non-physicists.  

The results were impressive--physicists are smart folks, but there’s clearly lots of advances yet to make as machine learning and physics learn from one another.  And who knows--maybe more Nobel prizes to win as well!

https://www.kaggle.com/c/higgs-boson

Hunting for the Higgs

In the 1850s, there were a lot of things we didn’t know yet: how to create an airplane, how to split an atom, or how to control the spread of a common but deadly disease: cholera.  

When a cholera outbreak in London killed scores of people, a doctor named John Snow used it as a chance to study whether the cause might be very small organisms that were spreading through the water supply (the prevailing theory at the time was miasma, or “bad air”).  By tracing the geography of all the deaths from the outbreak, Snow was practicing elementary data science--and stumbled upon one of history’s most famous outliers.  

In this episode, we’ll tell you more about this single data point, a case of cholera that cracked the case wide open for Snow and provided critical validation for the germ theory of disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1854_Broad_Street_cholera_outbreak

How Outliers Helped Defeat Cholera

Computers are capable of many impressive feats, but making you laugh is usually not one of them. Or could it be? This episode will talk about a custom-built machine learning algorithm that searches through text and writes jokes based on what it finds. 

The jokes are formulaic: they're all of the form "I like my X like I like my Y: Z" where X and Y are nouns, and Z is an adjective that can describe both X and Y. For (dumb) example, "I like my men like I like my coffee: steaming hot." The joke is funny when ZX and ZY are both very common phrases, but X and Y are rarely seen together. 

So, given a large enough corpus of text, the algorithm looks for triplets of words that fit this description and writes jokes based on them. Are the jokes funny? You be the judge...

http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/s0894589/petrovic13unsupervised.pdf

Computers Try to Tell Jokes

Baseball is characterized by a high level of equality between teams; even the best teams might only have 55% win percentages (contrast this with college football, where teams go undefeated pretty regularly). In this regime, where 2 outcomes (Giants win/Giants lose) are approximately equally likely, we can model the win/loss chances with a binomial distribution. 

Using the binomial distribution, we can calculate an interesting little result: what's the chance of the world series going to only 4 games? 5? 6? All the way to 7? Then we can compare to decades' worth of world series data, to see how well the data follows the binomial assumption. 

The result tells us a lot about sports psychology--if each game is independent of the others, 4/5/6/7 game series are equally likely. The data shows a different trend: 4 and 7 game series are significantly more likely than 5 or 6. There's a powerful psychological effect at play--everybody loves the 7th game of the world series, or a good sweep. And it turns out that the baseball teams, whether they intend it or not, oblige our love of short (4) and long (7) world series!

http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2007/06/winning-world-series-in-x-games.html

Stats of World Series Streaks

A true classic topic in ML: Facial recognition is very high-dimensional, meaning that each picture can have millions of pixels, each of which can be a single feature. It's computationally expensive to deal with all these features, and invites overfitting problems. PCA (principal components analysis) is a classic dimensionality reduction tool that compresses these many dimensions into the few that contain the most variation in the data, and those principal components are often then fed into a classic ML algorithm like and SVM. 

One of the best thing about eigenfaces is the great example code that you can find in sklearn--you can distinguish pictures of world leaders yourself in just a few minutes!

http://scikit-learn.org/stable/auto_examples/applications/face_recognition.html

Facial Recognition with Eigenfaces

There’s a ton of excitement about reinforcement learning, a form of semi-supervised machine learning that underpins a lot of today’s cutting-edge artificial intelligence algorithms.  Here’s a crash course in the algorithmic machinery behind AlphaGo, and self-driving cars, and major logistical optimization projects—and the robots that, tomorrow, will clean our houses and (hopefully) not take over the world…

Reinforcement Learning for Artificial Intelligence

It's a funny thing to realize, but data science modeling is usually about either explainability, interpretation and understanding, or it's about predictive accuracy.  But usually not both--optimizing for one tends to compromise the other.   Leo Breiman was one of the titans of both kinds of modeling, a statistician who helped bring machine learning into statistics and vice versa.  In this episode, we unpack one of his seminal papers from 2001, when machine learning was just beginning to take root, and talk about how he made clear what machine learning could do for statistics and why it's so important.

Relevant links:
http://www.math.snu.ac.kr/~hichoi/machinelearning/(Breiman)%20Statistical%20Modeling--The%20Two%20Cultures.pdf

Two Cultures: Machine Learning and Statistics

What does it mean to steal a model?  It means someone (the thief, presumably) can re-create the predictions of the model without having access to the algorithm itself, or the training data.  Sound far-fetched?  It isn't.  If that person can ask for predictions from the model, and he (or she) asks just the right questions, the model can be reverse-engineered right out from under you.  

Relevant links:
https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/usenixsecurity16/sec16_paper_tramer.pdf

How to Steal a Model

Want another reason to be paranoid when using the free coffee shop wifi?  Allow us to introduce WindTalker, a system that cleverly combines a dose of signal processing with a dash of machine learning to (potentially) steal the PIN from your phone transactions without ever having physical access to your phone.  This episode has it all, folks--channel state information, ICMP echo requests, low-pass filtering, PCA, dynamic time warps, and the PIN for your phone.

Stealing a PIN with signal processing and machine learning

This week, we're doing a crash course in recurrent neural networks--what the structural pieces are that make a neural net recurrent, how that structure helps RNNs solve certain time series problems, and the importance of forgetfulness in RNNs.  

Relevant links: 
http://colah.github.io/posts/2015-08-Understanding-LSTMs/

Recurrent Neural Nets

One interesting trend we've noted recently is the proliferation of papers, articles and blog posts about data science that don't just tell the result--they include data and code that allow anyone to repeat the analysis. It's far from universal (for a timely counterpoint, read this article <http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/missing-data-hinder-replication-artificial-intelligence-studies>), but we seem to be moving toward a new normal where data science conclusions are expected to be shown, not just told.

Relevant links:
https://github.com/fivethirtyeight/data
https://blog.patricktriest.com/police-data-python/

Open Data and Open Science

A few weeks ago, we podcasted about a neural network that was being touted as "better than doctors" in diagnosing pneumonia from chest x-rays, and how the underlying dataset used to train the algorithm raised some serious questions. We're back again this week with further developments, as the author of the original blog post pointed us toward more developments. All in all, there's a lot more clarity now around how the authors arrived at their original "better than doctors" claim, and a number of adjustments and improvements as the original result was de/re-constructed. 

Anyway, there are a few things that are cool about this. First, it's a worthwhile follow-up to a popular recent episode. Second, it goes *inside* an analysis to see what things like imbalanced classes, outliers, and (possible) signal leakage can do to real science. And last, it raises a really interesting question in an age when computers are often claimed to be better than humans: what do those claims really mean?

Relevant links:
https://lukeoakdenrayner.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/chexnet-an-in-depth-review/

What makes a machine learning algorithm "superhuman"?

After all the back-patting around making data science datasets and code more openly available, we figured it was time to also dump a bucket of cold water on everyone's heads and talk about the things that can go wrong when data and code is a little too open. 

In this episode, we'll talk about two interesting recent examples: a de-identified medical dataset in Australia that was re-identified so specific celebrities and athletes could be matched to their medical records, and a series of military bases that were spotted in a public fitness tracker dataset.

When Private Data Isn't Private Anymore

This week's episodes is for data scientists, sure, but also for data science managers and executives at companies with data science teams. These folks all think very differently about the same question: what should a data science team be working on? And how should that decision be made? That's the subject of a talk that I (Katie) gave at Strata Data in early March, about how my co-department head and I select projects for our team to work on.

We have several goals in data science project selection at Civis Analytics (where I work), which can be summarized under "balance the best attributes of bottom-up and top-down decision-making." We achieve this balance, or at least get pretty close, using a process we've come to call the Idea Factory (after a great book about Bell Labs). This talk is about that process, how it works in the real world of a data science company and how we see it working in the data science programs of other companies.

Relevant links: https://conferences.oreilly.com/strata/strata-ca/public/schedule/detail/63905

How to pick projects for a professional data science team

If you've done image recognition or computer vision tasks with a neural network, you've probably used a convolutional neural net. This episode is all about the architecture and implementation details of convolutional networks, and the tricks that make them so good at image tasks.