I have a object with many fields. Each field has different range of values. I want to use hypothesis to generate different instances of this object.
Is there a limit to the number of combination of field values Hypothesis can handle? Or what does the search tree hypothesis creates look like? I don't need all the combinations but I want to make sure that I get a fair number of combinations where I test many different values for each field. I want to make sure Hypothesis is not doing a DFS until it hits the max number of examples to generate
TLDR: don't worry, this is a common use-case and even a naive strategy works very well.
The actual search process used by Hypothesis is complicated (as in, "lead author's PhD topic"), but it's definitely not a depth-first search! Briefly, it's a uniform distribution layered on a psudeo-random number generator, with a coverage-guided fuzzer biasing that towards less-explored code paths, with strategy-specific heuristics on top of that.
In general, I trust this process to pick good examples far more than I trust my own judgement, or that of anyone without years of experience in QA or testing research!
Related
Is there any way to test multiple algorithms rather than doing it once for each and every algorithm; then checking the result? There are a lot of times where I don’t really know which one to use, so I would like to test multiple and get the result (error rate) fairly quick in Azure Machine Learning Studio.
You could connect the scores of multiple algorithms with an 'Evaluate Model' button to evaluate algorithms against each other.
Hope this helps.
The module you are looking for, is the one called “Cross-Validate Model”. It basically splits whatever comes in from the input-port (dataset) into 10 pieces, then reserves the last piece as the “answer”; and trains the nine other subset models and returns a set of accuracy statistics measured towards the last subset. What you would look at is the column called “Mean absolute error” which is the average error for the trained models. You can connect whatever algorithm you want to one of the ports, and subsequently you will receive the result for that algorithm in particular after you “right-click” the port which gives the score.
After that you can assess which algorithm did the best. And as a pro-tip; you could use the Filter-based-feature selection to actually see which column had a significant impact on the result.
You can check section 6.2.4 of hands-on-lab at GitHub https://github.com/Azure-Readiness/hol-azure-machine-learning/blob/master/006-lab-model-evaluation.md which focuses on the evaluation of multiple algorithms etc.
I am currently working on a search ranking algorithm which will be applied to elastic search queries (domain: e-commerce). It assigns scores on several entities returned and finally sorts them based on the score assigned.
My question is: Has anyone ever tried to introduce a certain level of randomness to any search algorithm and has experienced a positive effect of it. I am thinking that it might be useful to reduce bias and promote the lower ranking items to give them a chance to be seen easier and get popular if they deserve it. I know that some machine learning algorithms are introducing some randomization to reduce the bias so I thought it might be applied to search as well.
Closest I can get here is this but not exactly what I am hoping to get answers for:
Randomness in Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning
I don't see this mentioned in your post... Elasticsearch offers a random scoring feature: https://www.elastic.co/guide/en/elasticsearch/guide/master/random-scoring.html
As the owner of the website, you want to give your advertisers as much exposure as possible. With the current query, results with the same _score would be returned in the same order every time. It would be good to introduce some randomness here, to ensure that all documents in a single score level get a similar amount of exposure.
We want every user to see a different random order, but we want the same user to see the same order when clicking on page 2, 3, and so forth. This is what is meant by consistently random.
The random_score function, which outputs a number between 0 and 1, will produce consistently random results when it is provided with the same seed value, such as a user’s session ID
Your intuition is right - randomization can help surface results that get a lower than deserved score due to uncertainty in the estimation. Empirically, Google search ads seemed to have sometimes been randomized, and e.g. this paper is hinting at it (see Section 6).
This problem describes an instance of a class of problems called Explore/Exploit algorithms, or Multi-Armed Bandit problems; see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-armed_bandit. There is a large body of mathematical theory and algorithmic approaches. A general idea is to not always order by expected, "best" utility, but by an optimistic estimate that takes the degree of uncertainty into account. A readable, motivating blog post can be found here.
I have a scenario where a user can post a number of responses or phrases via a form field. I would like to be able to take the response and determine what they are asking for. For instance if the user types in car, train, bike, jet .... I can assume they are talking about a vehicle, and respond accordingly. I understand that I could use a switch statement or perhaps a regexp as well, however the larger the number of possible responses, the less efficient that computation will be. I'm wondering if there is an efficient algorithm for comparing a string with a group of strings. Any info would be great.
You may want to look into the Aho-Corasick algorithm. If you have a collection of strings that you want to search for, you can spend linear time doing preprocessing on those strings and from that point forward can, in O(n) time, check for all possible matches of those strings in a text corpus of length n. In other words, with a small preprocessing time to set up the algorithm once, you can extremely efficiently scan over numerous inputs again and again searching for those keywords.
Interestingly enough, the algorithm was specifically invented to build a fast index (that is, to look for a lot of different keywords in a huge body of text), and allegedly outperformed other methods by a factor of ten. I think it would work great in your application.
Hope this helps!
If you have a large number of "magic" words, I would suggest splitting the query into words, and using a hash-based lookup to check whether the words are recognized.
You can check Trie structure. I think one of best solution for your problem.
I have a python app with a database of businesses and I want to be able to search for businesses by name (for autocomplete purposes).
For example, consider the names "best buy", "mcdonalds", "sony" and "apple".
I would like "app" to return "apple", as well as "appel" and "ple".
"Mc'donalds" should return "mcdonalds".
"bst b" and "best-buy" should both return "best buy".
Which algorithm am I looking for, and does it have a python implementation?
Thanks!
The Levenshtein distance should do.
Look around - there are implementations in many languages.
Levenshtein distance will do this.
Note: this is a distance, you have to calculate it to every string in your database, which can be a big problem if you have a lot of entries.
If you have this problem then record all the typos the users make (typo=no direct match) and offline build a correction database which contains all the typo->fix mappings. some companies do this even more clever, eg: google watches how users correct their own typos and learns the mappings from this.
Soundex or Metaphone might work.
I think what you are looking for is a huge field of Data Quality and Data Cleansing. I fear if you could find a python implementation regarding this as it has to be something which cleanses considerable amount of data in db which could be of business value.
Levensthein distance goes in the right direction but only half the way. There are several tricks to get it to use the half matches as well.
One would be to use a subsequence dynamic time warping (DTW is actually a generalization of levensthein distance). For this you relax the start and end cases when calcualting the cost matrix. If you only relax one of the conditions you can get autocompletion with spell checking. I am not sure if there is a python implementation available, but if you want to implement it for yourself it should not be more than 10-20 LOC.
The other idea would be to use a Trie for speed up, which can do DTW/Levensthein on multiple results simultaniously (huge speedup if your database is large). There is a paper on Levensthein on Tries at IEEE, so you can find the algorithm there. Again for this you would need to relax the final boundary condition, so you get partial matches. However since you step down in the trie you just need to check when you have fully consumed the input and then return all leaves.
check this one http://docs.python.org/library/difflib.html
it should help you
I've seen a few sites that list related searches when you perform a search, namely they suggest other search queries you may be interested in.
I'm wondering the best way to model this in a medium-sized site (not enough traffic to rely on visitor stats to infer relationships). My initial thought is to store the top 10 results for each unique query, then when a new search is performed to find all the historical searches that match some amount of the top 10 results but ideally not matching all of them (matching all of them might suggest an equivalent search and hence not that useful as a suggestion).
I imagine that some people have done this functionality before and may be able to provide some ideas of different ways to do this. I'm not necessarily looking for one winning idea since the solution will no doubt vary substantially depending on the size and nature of the site.
have you considered a matrix of with keywords on 1 axis vs. documents on another axis. once you find the set of vetors representing the keywords, find sets of keyword(s) found in your initial result set and then find a way to rank the other keywords by how many documents they reference or how many times they interset the intial result set.
I've tried a number of different approaches to this, with various degrees of success. In the end, I think the best approach is highly dependent on the domain/topics being searched, and how the users form queries.
Your thought about storing previous searches seems reasonable to me. I'd be curious to see how it works in practice (I mean that in the most sincere way -- there are many nuances that can cause these techniques to fail in the "real world", particularly when data is sparse).
Here are some techniques I've used in the past, and seen in the literature:
Thesaurus based approaches: Index into a thesaurus for each term that the user has used, and then use some heuristic to filter the synonyms to show the user as possible search terms.
Stem and search on that: Stem the search terms (eg: with the Porter Stemming Algorithm and then use the stemmed terms instead of the initially provided queries, and given the user the option of searching for exactly the terms they specified (or do the opposite, search the exact terms first, and use stemming to find the terms that stem to the same root. This second approach obviously takes some pre-processing of a known dictionary, or you can collect terms as your indexing term finds them.)
Chaining: Parse the results found by the user's query and extract key terms from the top N results (KEA is one library/algorithm that you can look at for keyword extraction techniques.)