My teammate’s post on data.blog

A large and popular Israeli Facebook group, “The High-Tech Troubles,” has recently surveyed its participants. The responders provided personal, demographic, and professional information. The group owners have published the aggregated results of that survey. In this post, I analyze a particular aspect of these findings, namely, how the responders’ gender and experience affect their salary. It is worth noting that this survey is by no means a representative one. It’s most noticeable but not the only problem is the participation bias. Another problem is the fact that the result tables do not contain any information about the number of responders in any group. Without this information, it is impossible to compute confidence intervals of any findings. Despite these problems, the results are interesting and worth noting.

The data that I used in my analysis is available in this spreadsheet. The survey organizers promise that they excluded groups and categories with insufficiently few answers, and we have to trust them in that. The results are divided into twenty professional categories such as ‘Account Management,’ ‘Data Science’, ‘Support’ and ‘CXO’ (which stands for an executive role). The salary groups are organized in exponential bins according to the years of experience: 0-1, 1-2, 2-4, 4-7; and more than seven years of experience. Some of the cell values are missing, I assume that these are the categories with too few responders. I took a look at the gap between the salary reported by women and the compensation reported by men.

Let’s take a look at the most complete set of data – the groups of people with 1-2 years of experience. As we may see from the figure below, in thirteen out of twenty groups (65%), women get less money than men.

Among the workers with 1 - 2 years of experience, the most discriminating fields are executives and security researchers. It is interesting to note the difference between two closely related fields: Data Science and BI/Data Analysts. The former is considered a more lucrative position. On average, the male data scientists get 11% more than their female colleagues, while male data analysts get 13% less than their female counterparts. I wonder how this difference relates to my (very limited) observation that most of the people who call themselves a BI expert are females, while most of the data scientists whom I know are males.

As we have seen, there is no much gender equality for the young professionals. What happens when people gain experience? How does the gender compensation gap change after eight years of professional life? The situation is even worse. In fourteen, out of sixteen available fields, women get less money than men. The only field in which it pays to be a woman is the executive roles, where the women get 19% more than the men.

To complete the picture, let’s look at the gap dynamics over the years in all the occupation fields in that report.

What do we learn from these findings?

These findings are real. We cannot use the non-representativity of these data, and the lack of confidence intervals to dismiss these findings. I don’t expect the participants to lies, neither do I not expect any bias from the participation patterns. It is true that I can’t obtain confidence intervals for these results. However, the fact that the vast majority of the groups lie on one side of the equality line suggests the overall validity of the gender gap notion. How can we fix this gap? I frankly don’t know. As a father of three daughters (9, 12, and 14 years old), I talk to them about this gap. I make sure they are aware of this problem so that, when it’s their turn to negotiate compensation, they are aware of the systematic bias. I hope that this knowledge will give them the right tools to fight for justice.

Recently, I stumbled upon a report called “Understanding Today’s Chief Data Scientist” published by an HR company called Heidrick & Struggles. This document tries to draw a profile of the modern chief data scientist in today’s Big Data Era. This document contains the ugliest pieces of data visualization I have seen in my life. I can’t think of a more insulting graphical treatment of data. Publishing graph like these ones in a document that tries to discuss careers in data science is like writing a profile of a Pope candidate while accompanying it with pornographic pictures.

Before explaining my harsh attitude, let’s first ask an important question.

What is the purpose of graphs in a report?

There are only two valid reasons to include graphs in a report. The first reason is to provide a meaningful glimpse into the document. Before a person decided whether he or she wants to read a long document, they want to know what is it about, what were the methods used, and what the results are. The best way to engage the potential reader to provide them with a set of relevant graphs (a good abstract or introduction paragraph help too). The second reason to include graphs in a document is to provide details that cannot be effectively communicating by text-only means.

That’s it! Only two reasons. Sometimes, we might add an illustration or two, to decorate a long piece of text. Adding illustrations might be a valid decision provided that they do not compete with the data and it is obvious to any reader that an illustration is an illustration.

Let the horror begin!

The first graph in the H&S report stroke me with its absurdness.

At first glance, it looks like an overly-artistic doughnut chart. Then, you want to understand what you are looking at. “OK”, you say to yourself, “there were 100 employees who belonged to five categories. But what are those categories? Can someone tell me? Please? Maybe the report references this figure with more explanations? Nope. Nothing. This is just a doughnut chart without a caption or a title. Without a meaning.

I continued reading.

OK, so the H&S geniuses decided to hide the origin or their bar charts. Had they been students in a dataviz course I teach, I would have given them a zero. Ooookeeyy, it’s not a college assignment, as long as we can reconstruct the meaning from the numbers and the labels, we are good, right? I tried to do just that and failed. I tried to use the numbers in the text to help me filling the missing information and failed. All in all, these two graphs are a meaningless graphical junk, exactly like the first one.

The fourth graph gave me some hope.

Sure, this graph will not get the “best dataviz” award, but at least I understand what I’m looking at. My hope was too early. The next graph was as nonsense as the first three ones.

Finally, the report authors decided that it wasn’t enough to draw smartly looking color segments enclosed in a circle. They decided to add some cool looking lines. The authors remained faithful to their decision to not let any meaning into their graphical aids

.

Can’t we treat these graphs as illustrations?

Before co-founding the life-changing StackOverflow, Joel Spolsky was, among other things, an avid blogger. His blog, JoelOnSoftware, was the first blog I started following. Joel writes mostly about the programming business and. In order not to intimidate the readers with endless text blocks, Joel tends to break the text with illustrations. In many posts, Joel uses pictures of a cute Husky as an illustration. Since JoelOnSoftware isn’t a cynology blog, nobody gets confused by the sudden appearance of a Husky. Which is exactly what an illustration is - a graphical relief that doesn’t disturb. But what would happen if Joel decided to include a meaningless class diagram? Sure a class diagram may impress the readers. The readers will also want to understand it and its connection to the text. Once they fail, they will feel angry, and rightfully so

The bottom line

The bottom line is that people have to respect the rules of the domain they are writing about. If they don’t, their opinion cannot be trusted. That is why you should not take any pieces of advice related to data (or science) from H&S. Don’t get me wrong. It’s OK not to know the “grammar” of all the possible business domains. I, for example, know nothing about photography or dancing; my English is far from being perfect. That is why, I don’t write about photography, dancing or creative writing. I write about data science and visualization. It doesn’t mean I know everything about these fields. However, I did study a lot before I decided I could write something without ridiculing myself. So should everyone.

It’s such a joy to work with smart and interesting people. My teammate, Charles Earl, wrote a post about machine learning and poverty. It’s not short, but it’s worth reading.

A.I. and Big Data Could Power a New War on Poverty is the title of on op-ed in today’s New York Times by Elisabeth Mason. I fear that AI and Big Data is more likely to fuel a new War on the Poor unless a radical rethinking occurs. In fact this algorithmic War on the Poor […]

via AI and the War on Poverty — Charlescearl’s Weblog

Запись моего доклада на WordCamp Moscow (август 2017г.) доступна онлайн.

The recording of my presentation at WordCamp Moscow (Aug 2017) is finally available online: Two Heads are Better Than One - on blogging persistence (Russian)

https://videopress.com/v/QEUQ1aKw

My latest post on https://data.blog. I enjoyed preparing it, and like its results very much. Happy New Year, everyone.

Recently, I’ve stumbled upon an interesting series of posts about effective management of data science projects. One of the posts in the series says:

“Operationalization” – a term only a marketer could love. It really just means “people using your solution”.

The main claim of that post is that, at some point, bringing actual users to your data science project may be more important than improving the model. This is exactly what I meant in my “when good enough is good enough” post (also available on YouTube)

Many years ago, I tried to build something that today would have been called “Google Trends for Pubmed”. One thing that I’ve found during that process was how the emergence of HIV-related research reduced the number of cancer studies and how, several years later, the HIV research boom settled down, while letting the cancer research back.

I recalled about that project of mine when I took a look at the Google Trends data for, a once popular buzz-phrases, “data mining” and pattern recognition. Sic transit gloria mundi.

It’s not surprising that “Data Science” was the less popular term in 2004. As I already mentioned, “Data Science” is a relatively new term. What does surprise me is the fact that in the past, “Machine Learning” was so less popular that “Data Mining”. Even more surprising is the fact that Google Trends ranks “Machine Learning” almost twice as high, as “Data Science”. I was expecting to see the opposite.

“Pattern Recognition,” that, in 2004, was as (not) popular as “Machine Learning” become even less popular today. Does that mean that nobody is searching for patterns anymore? Not at all. The 2004 pattern recognition experts are now machine learning professors senior data scientists or if they work in academia, machine learning professors.

PS: does anybody know the reason behind the apparent seasonality in “Data Mining” trends?

I developed an anomaly detection system for Automattic internal dashboard. When presenting this system (“When good enough is just good enough”), I used to tell that in our particular case, the cost of false alerts was almost zero. I used to explain this claim by the fact that no automatic decisions were made based on the alerts, and that the only subscribers of the alert messages were a limited group of colleagues of mine. Automattic CFO, Stu West, who was the biggest stakeholder in this project, asked me not to stop claiming the “zero cost” claim. When the CFO of the company you work for asks you to do something, you comply. So, I stopped saying “zero cost” but I still listed the error costs as a problem I can safely ignore for the time being. I didn’t fully believe Stu, which is evident from the speaker notes of my presentation deck:

[caption id=”attachment_1942” align=”alignnone” width=”2298”]

My speaker notes. Note how “error costs” was the first problem I dismissed.[/caption]

I recalled about Stu’s request to stop talking about “zero cost” of false alerts today. Today, I noticed more than 10 unread messages in the Slack channel that receives my anomaly alerts. The oldest unread message was two weeks old. The only reason this could happen is that I stopped caring about the alerts because there were too many of them. I witnessed the classical case of “alert fatigue”, described in “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”, many centuries ago.

The lesson of this story is that there is no such a thing as zero-cost false alarms. Lack of specificity is a serious problem.

Feature image by Ray Hennessy

Sigrid Keydana, in her post Plus/minus what? Let’s talk about uncertainty (talk) — recurrent null, said

What’s the most important thing about communicating uncertainty? You’re doing it

Really?

Here, for example, a graph from a blog post

The graph clearly “communicates” the uncertainty but does it really convey it? Would you consider the lines and their corresponding confidence intervals very uncertain had you not seen the points?

What if I tell you that there’s a 30% Chance of Rain Tomorrow? Will you know what it means? Will a person who doesn’t operate on numbers know what it means? The answer, to both these questions, is “no”, as is shown by Gigerenzer and his collaborators in a 2005 paper).

Communicating uncertainty is not a new problem. Until recently, the biggest “clients” of uncertainty communication research were the weather forecasters. However, the recent “data era” introduced uncertainty to every aspect of our personal and professional lives. From credit risk to insurance premiums, from user classification to content recommendation, the uncertainty is everywhere. Simply “doing” uncertainty communication, as Sigrid Keydana from the Recurrent Null blog suggested isn’t enough. The huge public surprise caused by the 2016 US presidential election is the best evidence for that. Proper uncertainty communication is a complex topic. A good starting point to this complex topic is a paper Visualizing Uncertainty About the Future by David Spiegelhalter.

My post on data.blog

Line charts are great to convey the evolution of a variable over the time. This is a typical chart. It has three key components, the X-axis that represents the time, the Y-axis that represents the tracked value, and the line itself.

Usually, you will see the Y-axis at the left part of the graph. Unless you design for a Right-To-Left language environment, placing the Y-axis on the left makes perfect sense. However, left-side Y-axis isn’t a hard rule.

In many cases, more importance is given to the most recent data point. For example, it might be interesting to know a stock price dynamics but today’s price is what determines how much money I can get by selling my stock portfolio.

What happens if we move the axis to the right?

Now, today’s price of XYZ stock is visible more clearly. Let’s make the most important values explicitly clear:

There are two ways to obtain right-sided Y axis in matplotib. The first way uses a combination of

[code language=”python”]
ax.yaxis.tick_right() ax.yaxis.set_label_position(“right”)
[/code]

The second one creates a “twin X” axis and makes sure the first axis is invisible. It might seem that the first option is easier. However, when combined with seaborn’s despine function, strange things happen. Thus, I perform the second option. Following is the code that I used to create the last version of the graph.

[code language=”python”]
np.random.seed(123) days = np.arange(1, 31)
price = (np.random.randn(len(days)) * 0.1).cumsum() + 10

fig = plt.figure(figsize=(10, 5))
ax = fig.gca()
ax.set_yticks([]) # Make 1st axis ticks disapear.
ax2 = ax.twinx() # Create a secondary axis
ax2.plot(days,price, ‘-‘, lw=3)
ax2.set_xlim(1, max(days))
sns.despine(ax=ax, left=True) # Remove 1st axis spines
sns.despine(ax=ax2, left=True, right=False)
tks = [min(price), max(price), price[-1]]
ax2.set_yticks(tks) ax2.set_yticklabels([f’min:\n{tks[0]:.1f}’, f’max:\n{tks[1]:.1f}’, f’{tks[-1]:.1f}’])
ax2.set_ylabel(‘price [$]’, rotation=0, y=1.1, fontsize=’x-large’)
ixmin = np.argmin(price); ixmax = np.argmax(price);
ax2.set_xticks([1, days[ixmin], days[ixmax], max(days)])
ax2.set_xticklabels([‘Oct, 1’,f’Oct, {days[ixmin]}’, f’Oct, {days[ixmax]}’, f’Oct, {max(days)}’ ])
ylm = ax2.get_ylim()
bottom = ylm[0]
for ix in [ixmin, ixmax]: y = price[ix] x = days[ix] ax2.plot([x, x], [bottom, y], ‘-‘, color=’gray’, lw=0.8) ax2.plot([x, max(days)], [y, y], ‘-‘, color=’gray’, lw=0.8)
ax2.set_ylim(ylm) [/code]

Next time when you create a “something” vs time graph, ask yourself whether the last available point has a special meaning to the viewer. If it does, consider moving the Y axis to the left part of your graph and see whether it becomes more readable.

This post was triggered by a nice write-up by Plotting a Course: Line Charts by a new blogger David (he didn’t mention his last name) from https://thenumberist.wordpress.com/

The excellent Ben Odrin wrote a hilarious post with fictitious tombstones of famous mathematicians. This is only one example :

I decided to jump on that bandwagon

In my work, the speed of code writing and reading is usually more important than the speed of its execution. Right now, I’m facing a challenge of optimizing the running time of a fairly complex data science project. After a lot of profiling, I identified the major time consumers. One of such time-consuming steps involved grouping a Pandas DataFrame by a key, sorting each group by a score column, and taking first N elements in each group. The tables in this step are pretty small not more than one hundred elements. But since I have to perform this step many times, the running time accumulates to a substantial fraction.

Let’s first construct a toy example

[code lang=”python”]
N = 100
x = np.random.randint(1, 5, N).astype(int)
y = np.random.rand(N)
d = pd.DataFrame(dict(x=x, y=y))
[/code]

I’ll use %%timeit cell magic which runs a Jupyter cell many times, and measures the time it takes to run the code.

[code lang=”python”]

%%timeit
d.groupby( ‘x’ ).apply( lambda t: t.head(K) ).reset_index(drop=True)

[/code]

This is the output:

3.19 ms ± 253 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)

I suspected that head() was not the most efficient way to take the first lines. I tried .iloc

[code lang=”python”]

%%timeit
d.groupby( ‘x’ ).apply( lambda t: t.iloc[0:K] ).reset_index(drop=True)

[/code]

2.92 ms ± 86.9 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)

A 10% improvement. Not bad but not excellent either. Then I realized that Pandas groupby object have their own head function

[code lang=”python”]

%%timeit
d.groupby( ‘x’ ).head( K ).reset_index(drop=True)

[/code]

674 µs ± 23.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

647 microseconds instead of 3.2 milliseconds. The improvement is by almost a factor of five!

It’s not enough to have the right tool, it’s important to be aware of it, and to use it right. I wonder whether there is even faster way to obtain this job.

This is my “because you can” rant.

Here, you can see a typical situation. You have some sales data that you want to represent using a bar plot.

Immediately, you notice a problem: the names on the X axis are not readable. One way to make the labels readable is to enlarge the graph.

Making larger graphs isn’t always possible. So, the next default solution is to rotate the text labels.

However, there is a problem. Rotated text is read more slowly than standard horizontal text. Don’t believe me? This is not an opinion but rather a result of empirical studies [ref], [ref]. Sometimes, rotated text is unavoidable. Most of the time, it is not.

So, how do we make sure all the labels are readable without rotating them? One option is to move them up and down so that they don’t hinder each other. It is easily obtained with Python’s matplotlib

[code language=”python”]
plt.bar(range(len(people)), sales)
plt.title(‘October sales’)
plt.ylabel(‘$US’, rotation=0, ha=’right’)
ticks_and_labels = plt.xticks(range(len(people)), people, rotation=0)
for i, label in enumerate(ticks_and_labels[1]): label.set_y(label.get_position()[1] - (i % 2) * 0.05)
[/code]

(note, that I also rotated the Y axis label, for even more readability)

Another approach that will work with even longer labels and that requires fewer code lines it to rotate the bars, not the labels.

… and if you don’t have a compelling reason for the data order, you might also consider sorting the bars. Doing so will not only make it prettier, it will also make it easier to compare between similar values. Use the graph above to tell whether Teresa Jackson’s sales were higher or lower than those of Marie Richardson’s. Now do the same comparison using the graph below.

To sum up: the fact you can does not mean you should. Sometimes, rotating text labels is the easiest solution. The additional effort needed to decipher the graph is the price your audience pays for your laziness. They might as well skip your graphs your message won’t stick.

This was my because you can rant.

Featured image by Flickr user gullevek

If you are a data scientist, I am sure you wondered whether deep neural networks will replace you at your job one day. Every time I read about reports of researchers who managed to trick neural networks, I wonder whether the researchers were thinking about their job security, or their professional pride while performing the experiments. I think that the first example of such a report is a 2014 paper by Christian Szegedy and his colleagues called “Intriguing properties of neural networks”. The main goal of this paper, so it seems, was to peek into the black box of neural networks. In one of the experiments, the authors designed minor, invisible perturbation of the original images. These perturbations diminished the classification accuracy of a trained model.

In the recent post “5 Ways to Troll Your Neural Network” Ben Orlin describes five different ways to “troll a network”.

Image credit: Figure 5 from “Intriguing properties of neural networks”.

Unfortunately, there is no widely accepted, ready to use, standard way to interactively visualize networks in python. The following post shows yet another attempt to build an ad-hoc app.

Which of these two pictures should I choose for my gravatar?

Both were taken by Luca Sartoni

Weekly reading list from the data.blog team

You know that I like reading a ruthless critique of others’ work – I like telling myself that by doing so I learn good practices (in reality, I suspect I’m just a case what we call in Hebrew שמחה לאיד – the joy of some else’s failure).

Anyhow, I’d like to share a set of posts by Lior Patcher in which he calls bullshit on several reputable people and concepts. Calling bullshit is easy. Doing so with arguments is not so. Lior Patcher worked hard to justify his opinion.

Unfortunately, I don’t publish academic papers. But if I do, I will definitely want prof. Patcher read it, and let the world know what he thinks about it. For good and for bad.

Speaking of calling bullshit. Believe it or not, University of Washington has a course with this exact title. The course is available onlinehttp://callingbullshit.org/ and is worth watching. I watched all the course’s videos during my last flight from Canada to Israel. The featured image of this post is a screenshot of this course’s homepage.

I went through my Machine Learning tag feed. Suddenly, I stumbled upon a pie chart that looked so terrible, I was sure the post would be about bad practices in data visualization. I was wrong. The chart was there to convey some information. The problem is that it is bad in so many ways. It is very hard to appreciate the information in a post that shows charts like that. Especially when the post talks about data science that relies so much on data visualization.

via Math required for machine learning — Youth Innovation

I would write a post about good practices in pie charts, but Robert Kosara, of https://eagereyes.org does this so well, I don’t really think I need to reinvent the weel. Pie charts are very powerful in conveying information. Make sure you use this tool well. I strongly suggest reading everything Robert Kosara has to say on this topic.

Compiled by my teammate Yanir Serourssi, the following is a reading list an A/B tests that you should read even if you don’t plan to perform an A/B test anytime soon. The list is Yanir’s. The reviews are mine. Collective intelligence in action :-)

* [If you don’t pay attention, data can drive you off a cliff](https://yanirseroussi.com/2016/08/21/seven-ways-to-be-data-driven-off-a-cliff/)   In this post, Yanir lists seven common mistakes that are common to any data-based analysis. At some point, you might think that this is a list of trivial truths. Maybe it is. The fact that Yanir's points are trivial doesn't make them less correct. Awareness doesn't exist without knowledge. Unfortunately, knowledge doesn't assure awareness. Which is why reading trivial truths is a good thing to do from time to time.
* [How to identify your marketing lies and start telling the truth](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-identify-your-marketing-lies-start-telling-truth-tiberio-caetano)   This post was written by Tiberio Caetano, a data science professor at the University of Sidney. If I had to summarize this post with a single phrase, that would be "confounding factors". A confounding variable is a variable hidden from your eye that influences a measured effect. One example of a confounding variable is when you start an ad campaign for ice cream, your sales go up, and you conclude that the ad campaign was effective. What you forgot was that the ad campaign started at the beginning of the summer, when people start buying more ice cream anyhow.   See [this link](https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat507/node/34) for a detailed textbook-quality review of confounding variables.
* [Seven rules of thumb for web site experimenters](http://www.exp-platform.com/Documents/2014%20experimentersRulesOfThumb.pdf)   I read this review back in 2014, shortly after it was published by, among others, researchers from Microsoft and LinkedIn. Judging by the title, one would expect yet another list of trivial truths in a self-promoting product blog. This is not the case here. In this paper, you will find several real-life case studies, many references to marketing studies, and no advertising of shady products or schemes.
* [A dirty dozen: Twelve common metric interpretation pitfalls in online controlled experiments](http://exp-platform.com/Documents/2017-08%20KDDMetricInterpretationPitfalls.pdf)   Another academic paper by Microsoft researchers. This one lists a lot of "dont's". Like in the previous link, every advice the authors give is based on established theory and backed up by real data.

Perhaps you heard about Tay, Microsoft’s experimental Twitter chat-bot, and how within a day it became so offensive that Microsoft had to shut it down and never speak of it again. And you assumed that you would never make such a thing, because you’re not doing anything weird like letting random jerks on Twitter re-train […]

via How to make a racist AI without really trying — ConceptNet blog

Please leave a comment on this post. It doesn’t matter what you want to write. It can be short or long. Any comment. I need to know that humans read this blog. If you feel really generous, tell me how you found this blog, what you think of it.