1,720,974 research outputs found
Mining Big Data with Random Forests
No full textIn the current big data era, naive implementations of well-known learning algorithms cannot efficiently and effectively deal with large datasets. Random forests (RFs) are a popular ensemble-based method for classification. RFs have been shown to be effective in many different real-world classification problems and are commonly considered one of the best learning algorithms in this context. In this paper, we develop an RF implementation called ReForeSt, which, unlike the currently available solutions, can distribute data on available machines in two different ways to optimize the computational and memory requirements of RF with arbitrarily large datasets ranging from millions of samples to millions of features. A recently proposed improved RF formulation called random rotation ensembles can be used in conjunction with model selection to automatically tune the RF hyperparameters. We perform an extensive experimental evaluation on a wide range of large datasets and several environments with different numbers of machines and numbers of cores per machine. Results demonstrate that ReForeSt, in comparison to other state-of-the-art alternatives such as MLlib, is less computationally intensive, more memory efficient, and more effective
NG-DBSCAN: Scalable density-based clustering for arbitrary data
No full textWe present NG-DBSCAN, an approximate density-based clustering algorithm that operates on arbitrary data and any symmetric distance measure. The distributed design of our algorithm makes it scalable to very large datasets; its approximate nature makes it fast, yet capable of producing high quality clustering results. We provide a detailed overview of the steps of NG-DBSCAN, together with their analysis. Our results, obtained through an extensive experimental campaign with real and synthetic data, substantiate our claims about NG-DBSCAN's performance and scalability
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
ReForeSt: Random Forests in Apache Spark
No full textRandom Forests (RF) of tree classifiers are a popular ensemble method for classification. RF are usually preferred with respect to other classification techniques because of their limited hyperparameter sensitivity, high numerical robustness, native capacity of dealing with numerical and categorical features, and effectiveness in many real world classification problems. In this work we present ReForeSt, a Random Forests Apache Spark implementation which is easier to tune, faster, and less memory consuming with respect to MLlib, the de facto standard Apache Spark machine learning library. We perform an extensive comparison between ReForeSt and MLlib by taking advantage of the Google Cloud Platform (https://cloud.google.com). In particular, we test ReForeSt and MLlib with different library settings, on different real world datasets, and with a different number of machines equipped with different number of cores. Results confirm that ReForeSt outperforms MLlib in all the above mentioned aspects. ReForeSt is made publicly available via GitHub (https://github.com/alessandrolulli/reforest)
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
