Develop Reference

Store and search sets (with many possible values) in a database (from Java)

The problem is how to store (and search) a set of items a user likes and dislikes. Although each user may have 2-100 items in their set, the possible values for the items numbers in the tens of thousands (and is expanding).
Associated with each item is a value say from 10 (like) to 0 (neutral) to -10 (dislike).
So given a user with a particular set, how to find users with similar sets (say a percentage overlap on the intersection)? Ideally the set of matches could be reduced via a filter that includes only items with like/dislike values within a certain percentage.
I don't see how to use key/value or column-store for this, and walking relational table of items for each user would seem to consume too many resources. Making the sets into documents would seem to lose clarity.
The web app is in Java. I've searched ORMS, NoSQL, ElasticSearch and related tools and databases. Any suggestions?

Ok this seems like the actual storage isn’t the problem, but you want to make a suggestion system based on the likes/dislikes.
The point is that you can store things however you want, even in SQL, most SQL RDBMS will be good enough for your data store, but you can of course also use anything else you want. The point, is that no SQL solution (which I know of) will give you good results with this. The thing you are looking for is a suggestion system based on artificial intelligence, and the best one for distributed systems, where they have many libraries implemented, is Apache Mahout.
According to what I’ve learned about it so far, it can do what you need basically out of the box. I know that it’s based on Hadoop and Yarn but I’m not sure if you can import data from anywhere you want, or need to have it in HDFS.
Other option would be to implement a machine learning algorithm on your own, which would run only on one machine, but you just won’t get the results you want with a simple query in any sql system.
The reason you need machine learning algorithms and a query with some numbers won’t be enough in most of the cases, is the diversity of users you are facing… What if you have a user B which liked / disliked everything he has in common with user A the same way - but the coverage is only 15%. On the other hand you have user C which is pretty similar to A (while not at 100%, the directions are pretty much the same) and C has marked over 90% of the things, which A also marked. In this scenario C is much closer to A than B would be, but B has 100% coverage. There are many other scenarios where most simple percentages won’t be enough, and that’s why many companies which have suggestion systems (Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, …) use Apache Mahout and similar systems to get those done.

Scattered data set in statistical data analysis

I have some number of statistical data. Some of the data are very scattered to the majority of data set as shown below. What I want to do is minimize the effect of highly scattered data in the data set. I want to compute mean of the data set which has minimized effect of the scattered data in my case.
My data set is as like this:
10.02, 11, 9.12, 7.89, 10.5, 11.3, 10.9, 12, 8.99, 89.23, 328.42.
As shown in figure below:
I need the mean value which is not 46.3 but closer to other data distribution.
Actually, I want to minimize the effect of 89.23 & 328.42 in mean calculation.
Thanks in advance

You might notice that you really dont want the mean. The problem here is that the distribution you've assumed for the data is different from the actual data. If you are trying to fit a normal distribution to this data you'll get bad results. You could try to fit a heavy tailed distribution like the cauchy to this data. If you want to use a normal distribution, then you need to filter out the non-normal samples. If you feel like you know what the standard deviation should be, you could remove everything from the sample above say 3 standard deviations away from the mean (the number 3 would have to depend on the sample size). This process can be done recursively to remove non-normal samples till you are happy with the size of the outlier in terms of the standard deviation.

Unfortunatley the mean of a set of data is just that - the mean value. Are you sure that the point is actually an outlier? Your data contains what appears to be a single outlier with regards to the clustering, but if you take a look at your plot, you will see that this data does seem to have a linear relationship and so is it truly an outlier?
If this reading is really causing you problems, you could remove it entirely. Other than that the only thing that I could suggest to you is to calculate some kind of weighted mean rather than the true mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weighted_mean . This way you can assign a lower weighting to the point when calculating your mean (although how you choose a value for the weight is another matter). This is similar to weighted regression, where particular data points have less weight associated to the regression fitting (possibly due to unreliability of certain points for example) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_least_squares_(mathematics)#Weighted_linear_least_squares .
Hope this helps a little, or at least gives you some pointers to other avenues that you can try pursuing.

"Quick and Dirty" Facial Recognition and Database Storage/Lookup in Java

For the last week I've been researching and experimenting with facial recognition. The intended application is for a person to be able to look up a person's information in a database (SQL) by simply taking a picture of their face. The initial expectation was to be able to compress a face down to a key or hash and use this as the database lokup. This need not be extremely accurate as the person looking up the information can and most likely will end up doing a final comparison between the original image on file and the person standing in front of them.
OpenCV/JavaCV seems to be the obvious starting point, and the facial detection that it provides works well, however the implementation of Eigenfaces for facial recognition isn't ideal because online training by recompiling hundreds of thousands of user faces every time a new face needs to be added to the training set wouldn't work.
I am experimenting with using SURF descriptors on a face extracted using OpenCV's Haar Cascade features, and this appears to get me closer to the intended result, however I am unable to think of a way to efficiently lookup and compare roughly 30 descriptors (which are either 64 or 128 dimensional vectors) in a database. I've done some reading about LSH and Spectral Hashing algorithms, however there are no implementations to be found for Java and my math isn't strong enough to implement them myself.
Does anyone have any thoughts or ideas on how this might be accomplished, or if it is even possible?

Hashing isn't complicated, nor do you need a degree in maths.
Assuming that any 2 images will result in a fairly similar number of 'descriptors' then it only requires that you get a reasonable match with enough of them to get to a high enough confidence factor.
How specific these descriptors are determines what level of collision you can accept in your hashing algorithm.
As you have several of them, I would suggest that you don't need anything too sophisticated - after all, you probably want a level of 'fuzziness' in your search?
Start with something simple - experiment and refine. You might even find that you'll need different hashing for different descriptors - i.e. some might be more specific than others?
Hopefully some food for thought.

Design for a Debate club assignment application

For my university's debate club, I was asked to create an application to assign debate sessions and I'm having some difficulties as to come up with a good design for it. I will do it in Java. Here's what's needed:
What you need to know about BP debates: There are four teams of 2 debaters each and a judge. The four groups are assigned a specific position: gov1, gov2, op1, op2. There is no significance to the order within a team.
The goal of the application is to get as input the debaters who are present (for example, if there are 20 people, we will hold 2 debates) and assign them to teams and roles with regards to the history of each debater so that:
Each debater should debate with (be on the same team) as many people as possible.
Each debater should uniformly debate in different positions.
The debate should be fair - debaters have different levels of experience and this should be as even as possible - i.e., there shouldn't be a team of two very experienced debaters and a team of junior debaters.
There should be an option for the user to restrict the assignment in various ways, such as:
Specifying that two people should debate together, in a specific position or not.
Specifying that a single debater should be in a specific position, regardless of the partner.
If anyone can try to give me some pointers for a design for this application, I'll be so thankful!
Also, I've never implemented a GUI before, so I'd appreciate some pointers on that as well, but it's not the major issue right now.
Also, there is the issue of keeping Debater information in file, which I also never implemented in Java, and would like some tips on that as well.

This seems like a textbook constraint problem. GUI notwithstanding, it'd be perfect for a technology like Prolog (ECLiPSe prolog has a couple of different Java integration libraries that ship with it).
But, since you want this in Java why not store the debaters' history in a sql database, and use the SQL language to structure the constraints. You can then wrap those SQL queries as Java methods.

There are two parts (three if you count entering and/or saving the data), the underlying algorithm and the UI.
For the UI, I'm weird. I use this technique (there is a link to my sourceforge project). A Java version would have to be done, which would not be too hard. It's weird because very few people have ever used it, but it saves an order of magnitude coding effort.
For the algorithm, the problem looks small enough that I would approach it with a simple tree search. I would have a scoring algorithm and just report the schedule with the best score.
That's a bird's-eye overview of how I would approach it.

Calculating Mutual Information For Selecting a Training Set in Java

Scenario
I am attempting to implement supervised learning over a data set within a Java GUI application. The user will be given a list of items or 'reports' to inspect and will label them based on a set of available labels. Once the supervised learning is complete, the labelled instances will then be given to a learning algorithm. This will attempt to order the rest of the items on how likely it is the user will want to view them.
To get the most from the user's time I want to pre-select the reports that will provide the most information about the entire collection of reports, and have the user label them. As I understand it, to calculate this, it would be necessary to find the sum of all the mutual information values for each report, and order them by that value. The labelled reports from supervised learning will then be used to form a Bayesian network to find the probability of a binary value for each remaining report.
Example
Here, an artificial example may help to explain, and may clear up confusion when I've undoubtedly used the wrong terminology :-) Consider an example where the application displays news stories to the user. It chooses which news stories to display first based on the user's preference shown. Features of a news story which have a correlation are country of origin, category or date. So if a user labels a single news story as interesting when it came from Scotland, it tells the machine learner that there's an increased chance other news stories from Scotland will be interesting to the user. Similar for a category such as Sport, or a date such as December 12th 2004.
This preference could be calculated by choosing any order for all news stories (e.g. by category, by date) or randomly ordering them, then calculating preference as the user goes along. What I would like to do is to get a kind of "head start" on that ordering by having the user to look at a small number of specific news stories and say if they're interested in them (the supervised learning part). To choose which stories to show the user, I have to consider the entire collection of stories. This is where Mutual Information comes in. For each story I want to know how much it can tell me about all the other stories when it is classified by the user. For example, if there is a large number of stories originating from Scotland, I want to get the user to classify (at least) one of them. Similar for other correlating features such as category or date. The goal is to find examples of reports which, when classified, provide the most information about the other reports.
Problem
Because my math is a bit rusty, and I'm new to machine learning I'm having some trouble converting the definition of Mutual Information to an implementation in Java. Wikipedia describes the equation for Mutual Information as:
However, I'm unsure if this can actually be used when nothing has been classified, and the learning algorithm has not calculated anything yet.
As in my example, say I had a large number of new, unlabelled instances of this class:
public class NewsStory {
private String countryOfOrigin;
private String category;
private Date date;
// constructor, etc.
}
In my specific scenario, the correlation between fields/features is based on an exact match so, for instance, one day and 10 years difference in date are equivalent in their inequality.
The factors for correlation (e.g. is date more correlating than category?) are not necessarily equal, but they can be predefined and constant. Does this mean that the result of the function p(x,y) is the predefined value, or am I mixing up terms?
The Question (finally)
How can I go about implementing the mutual information calculation given this (fake) example of news stories? Libraries, javadoc, code examples etc. are all welcome information. Also, if this approach is fundamentally flawed, explaining why that is the case would be just as valuable an answer.
PS. I am aware of libraries such as Weka and Apache Mahout, so just mentioning them is not really useful for me. I'm still searching through documentation and examples for both these libraries looking for stuff on Mutual Information specifically. What would really help me is pointing to resources (code examples, javadoc) where these libraries help with mutual information.

I am guessing that your problem is something like...
"Given a list of unlabeled examples, sort the list by how much the predictive accuracy of the model would improve if the user labelled the example and added it to the training set."
If this is the case, I don't think mutual information is the right thing to use because you can't calculate MI between two instances. The definition of MI is in terms of random variables and an individual instance isn't a random variable, it's just a value.
The features and the class label can be though of as random variables. That is, they have a distribution of values over the whole data set. You can calculate the mutual information between two features, to see how 'redundant' one feature is given the other one, or between a feature and the class label, to get an idea of how much that feature might help prediction. This is how people usually use mutual information in a supervised learning problem.
I think ferdystschenko's suggestion that you look at active learning methods is a good one.
In response to Grundlefleck's comment, I'll go a bit deeper into terminology by using his idea of a Java object analogy...
Collectively, we have used the term 'instance', 'thing', 'report' and 'example' to refer to the object being clasified. Let's think of these things as instances of a Java class (I've left out the boilerplate constructor):
class Example
{ String f1;
String f2;
}
Example e1 = new Example("foo", "bar");
Example e2 = new Example("foo", "baz");
The usual terminology in machine learning is that e1 is an example, that all examples have two features f1 and f2 and that for e1, f1 takes the value 'foo' and f2 takes the value 'bar'. A collection of examples is called a data set.
Take all the values of f1 for all examples in the data set, this is a list of strings, it can also be thought of as a distribution. We can think of the feature as a random variable and that each value in the list is a sample taken from that random variable. So we can, for example, calculate the MI between f1 and f2. The pseudocode would be something like:
mi = 0
for each value x taken by f1:
{ sum = 0
for each value y taken by f2:
{ p_xy = number of examples where f1=x and f2=y
p_x = number of examples where f1=x
p_y = number of examples where f2=y
sum += p_xy * log(p_xy/(p_x*p_y))
}
mi += sum
}
However you can't calculate MI between e1 and e2, it's just not defined that way.

I know information gain only in connection with decision trees (DTs), where in the construction of a DT, the split to make on each node is the one which maximizes information gain. DTs are implemented in Weka, so you could probably use that directly, although I don't know if Weka lets you calculate information gain for any particular split underneath a DT node.
Apart from that, if I understand you correctly, I think what you're trying to do is generally referred to as active learning. There, you first need some initial labeled training data which is fed to your machine learning algorithm. Then you have your classifier label a set of unlabeled instances and return confidence values for each of them. Instances with the lowest confidence values are usually the ones which are most informative, so you show these to a human annotator and have him/her label these manually, add them to your training set, retrain your classifier, and do the whole thing over and over again until your classifier has a high enough accuracy or until some other stopping criterion is met. So if this works for you, you could in principle use any ML-algorithm implemented in Weka or any other ML-framework as long as the algorithm you choose is able to return confidence values (in case of Bayesian approaches this would be just probabilities).
With your edited question I think I'm coming to understand what your aiming at. If what you want is calculating MI, then StompChicken's answer and pseudo code couldn't be much clearer in my view. I also think that MI is not what you want and that you're trying to re-invent the wheel.
Let's recapitulate: you would like to train a classifier which can be updated by the user. This is a classic case for active learning. But for that, you need an initial classifier (you could basically just give the user random data to label but I take it this is not an option) and in order to train your initial classifier, you need at least some small amount of labeled training data for supervised learning. However, all you have are unlabeled data. What can you do with these?
Well, you could cluster them into groups of related instances, using one of the standard clustering algorithms provided by Weka or some specific clustering tool like Cluto. If you now take the x most central instances of each cluster (x depending on the number of clusters and the patience of the user), and have the user label it as interesting or not interesting, you can adopt this label for the other instances of that cluster as well (or at least for the central ones). Voila, now you have training data which you can use to train your initial classifier and kick off the active learning process by updating the classifier each time the user marks a new instance as interesting or not. I think what you're trying to achieve by calculating MI is essentially similar but may be just the wrong carriage for your charge.
Not knowing the details of your scenario, I should think that you may not even need any labeled data at all, except if you're interested in the labels themselves. Just cluster your data once, let the user pick an item interesting to him/her from the central members of all clusters and suggest other items from the selected clusters as perhaps being interesting as well. Also suggest some random instances from other clusters here and there, so that if the user selects one of these, you may assume that the corresponding cluster might generally be interesting, too. If there is a contradiction and a user likes some members of a cluster but not some others of the same one, then you try to re-cluster the data into finer-grained groups which discriminate the good from the bad ones. The re-training step could even be avoided by using hierarchical clustering from the start and traveling down the cluster hierarchy at every contradiction user input causes.