Big Data and the Web: Algorithms for Data Intensive Scalable Computing

Big Data and the Web:
Algorithms for Data Intensive
Scalable Computing
Gianmarco De Francisci Morales
IMT Institute for Advanced Studies, Lucca
ISTI-CNR, Pisa
Supervisors:
Claudio Lucchese
Ranieri Baraglia

View Slide

Big Data...
“Data whose size forces us to look beyond the tried-
and-true methods that are prevalent at the
time” (Jacobs 2009)
“When the size of the data itself becomes part of the
problem and traditional techniques for working with
data run out of steam” (Loukides 2010)
3V: Volume, Variety, Velocity (Gartner 2011)

View Slide

...and the Web
Largest publicly accessible data source in the world
Economical, socio-political and scientiﬁc importance
Center of our digital lives, digital footprint
Data is large, noisy, diverse, fast
3 main models for data:
Bags, Graphs, Streams

View Slide

Big Data Mining
(Data Mining) Data mining is the process of inspecting
data in order to extract useful information
(Data Exhaust) The quality of the information extracted
beneﬁts from the availability of extensive datasets
(Data Deluge) The size of these datasets calls for
parallel solutions: Data Intensive Scalable Computing

View Slide

DISC
Data Intensive Scalable Computing systems
Parallel, scalable, cost effective, fault tolerant
Non general purpose, data-parallel, restricted
computing interface for the sake of performance
2 main computational models: MapReduce, Streaming

View Slide

MapReduce
DFS
Input 1
Input 2
Input 3
MAP
MAP
MAP
REDUCE
REDUCE
DFS
Output 1
Output 2
Shufﬂe
Merge &
Group
Partition &
Sort
Map : [k1, v1
] → [k2, v2
]
Reduce : {k2 : [v2]} → [k3, v3
]

View Slide

Streaming (Actor Model)
PE : [s1, k1, v1
] → [s2, k2, v2
]
Live Streams
Stream 1
Stream 2
Stream 3
PE
PE
PE
PE
PE
External
Persister
Output 1
Output 2
Event
routing

View Slide

Research Goal

View Slide

Research Goal
Design algorithms for Web mining
that efﬁciently harness the power of
Data Intensive Scalable Computing

View Slide

Contributions
Algorithm Structure
Data Complexity
MR-Iterative
MR-Optimized S4-Streaming & MR
Bags
Streams & Graphs
Graphs Social
Content
Matching
Similarity
Self-Join
Personalized
Online News
Recommendation

View Slide

Similarity Self-Join
Discover all those pairs of objects
whose similarity is above a threshold
2 new MapReduce algorithms:
SSJ-2 and SSJ-2R
Exact solution with efﬁcient pruning
Test on a large Web corpus from TREC
4.5x faster than state-of-the-art
R. Baraglia, G. De Francisci Morales, C. Lucchese
“Document Similarity Self-Join with MapReduce”
IEEE International Conference on Data Mining 2010
R. Baraglia, G. De Francisci Morales, C. Lucchese
“Scaling out All Pairs Similarity Search with MapReduce”
ACM Workshop on Large Scale Distributed Systems for IR 2010

View Slide

Motivation

View Slide

SSJ-2R

View Slide

shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
shuffle
1
,d
3
), 2>
1
,d
3
), 1>
1
,!),"A A B C">
1
,d
3
), 2>
1
,d
3
), 1>
reduce 1
,d
3
), 5>
Similarity
map
map
map
map
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
1
,!),
"A A B C">
3
,!),
"A B B C">
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
SSJ-2R

View Slide

shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
shuffle
1
,d
3
), 2>
1
,d
3
), 1>
1
,!),"A A B C">
1
,d
3
), 2>
1
,d
3
), 1>
reduce 1
,d
3
), 5>
Similarity
map
map
map
map
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
1
,!),
"A A B C">
3
,!),
"A B B C">
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
SSJ-2R

View Slide

shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
shuffle
1
,d
3
), 2>
1
,d
3
), 1>
1
,!),"A A B C">
1
,d
3
), 2>
1
,d
3
), 1>
reduce 1
,d
3
), 5>
Similarity
map
map
map
map
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
1
,!),
"A A B C">
3
,!),
"A B B C">
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
shuffle
1
,d
3
), 2>
1
,d
3
), 1>
1
,!),"A A B C">
1
,d
3
), 2>
1
,d
3
), 1>
reduce 1
,d
3
), 5>
Similarity
map
map
map
map
Remainder
File
d
1
"A A"
d
3
"A"
d
2
"B"
Distributed Cache
1
,!),
"A A B C">
3
,!),
"A B B C">
SSJ-2R

View Slide

Experiments
4 workers with 16 cores, 8 GB memory, 2 TB disks
WT10G samples
Metric: running time
Table II
SAMPLES FROM THE TREC WT10G COLLECTION
D17K D30K D63K
# documents 17,024 30,683 63,126
# terms 183,467 297,227 580,915
# all pairs 289,816,576 941,446,489 3,984,891,876
# similar pairs 94,220 138,816 189,969
B
al
co
ar
gr
do

View Slide

Results
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Time (seconds)
Number of vectors
ELSA
VERN
SSJ-2
SSJ-2R
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Time (seconds)
Number of vectors
ELSA
VERN
SSJ-2
SSJ-2R

View Slide

Results
1
10
100
1000
100 1000
Number of lists
Inverted list length
max=6600
ELSA
1
10
100
1000
Number of lists
max=1729
SSJ-2R
1
10
100
1000
100 1000
Number of lists
max=6600
ELSA
1
10
100
1000
Number of lists
max=1729
SSJ-2R

View Slide

Results
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (seconds)
Mapper ID
ELSA
VERN
SSJ-2R without bucketing
SSJ-2R with bucketing
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (seconds)
Mapper ID
ELSA
VERN

View Slide

Social Content
Matching
Select a subset of the edges of a weighed graphs,
maximizing the total weight of the solution,
while obeying capacity constraints of the nodes
StackMR: ⅙ approx., poly-logarithmic, (1+∊) violations
GreedyMR: ½ approx., linear worst case, no violations
Validation on 2 large datasets coming from real world
systems: flickr and Yahoo! Answers
SSJ-2R to build the weighted bipartite graphs
G. De Francisci Morales, A. Gionis, M. Sozio
“Social Content Matching in MapReduce”
International Conference on Very Large Data Bases 2011

View Slide

Motivation

View Slide

Problem: graph b-matching
Given a set of items T,
consumers C, bipartite
graph, weights w(ti, cj),
capacity constraints
b(ti) and b(cj)
Find a matching
M={(t, c)} such that
- |M(ti)| ≤ b(ti)
- |M(cj)| ≤ b(cj)
- w(M) is maximized
Items Consumers

View Slide

Graph processing in MR
Map
Reduce

View Slide

Experiments
3 datasets:
Quality = b-matching value
Efﬁciency = number of MR iterations
Evaluation of capacity violations for StackMR
Evaluation of convergence speed for GreedyMR
Dataset |T| |C| |E|
flickr-small 2 817 526 550 667
flickr-large 373 373 32 707 1 995 123 827
yahoo-answers 4 852 689 1 149 714 18 847 281 236

View Slide

View Slide

Personalized Online
News Recommendation
Deliver personalized news recommendations based on
a model built from the Twitter proﬁle of users
Learn personalized ranking function from 3 signals:
Social, Content, Popularity
Deep personalization via entity extraction
Test on 1 month of Y! News + Twitter + Toolbar logs
Predict user click in top-10 positions 20% of the times
G. De Francisci Morales, A. Gionis, C. Lucchese
“From Chatter to Headlines: Harnessing the Real-Time Web for Personalized News Recommendations”
ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining 2012

View Slide

Motivation

View Slide

Timeliness
Personalization
Number of
mentions of
“Osama Bin
Laden”
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
M
ay-01
h20
M
ay-02
h00
M
ay-02
h04
M
ay-02
h08
M
ay-02
h12
M
ay-02
h16
M
ay-02
h20
M
ay-03
h00
M
ay-03
h04
M
ay-03
h08
news
twitter
clicks
Why Twitter?

View Slide

FEATURED FROM YOUR
TWITTER ACCOUNT
!"#$%&"'()*+&,
Recommended from Twitter!

View Slide

Designed to be streaming and lightweight
Recommendation model is updated in real-time
Tweets
User
Tweets
Followee
Tweets
Followee
Tweets
Followee
Tweets
Twitter
articles
news
T.Rex
User
Model
!
"
#
Personalized
ranked list of
news articles
System Overview
Rτ (u, n) = α · Στ (u, n) + β · Γτ (u, n) + γ · Πτ (n)

View Slide

Automatic evaluation, aim for precision
Frame as a click prediction problem, at time τ:
Given a user model and a stream of published news
Predict which news the user clicks on
Clicks from Y! Toolbar and news from Y! News
1 month of English Tweets + crawled follower network
Experiments

View Slide

Evaluation Metrics
where is the rank of the clicked news article
at the i-th event and Q is the set of tests
where is the relevance of the document at
position j in the i-th ranking
MRR =
1
|Q|
Q

i=1
1
r(ni
∗
)
r(ni
∗
) ni
∗
DCG[j] =

G[j] if j = 1;
DCG[j − 1] + G[j]
log2j
if j > 1,
ni
j
G[j]
G[j] = Jaccard(ni
∗
, ni
j
) × 5 ÷ 5

View Slide

Entity overlap between clicked and suggested news article
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Average DCG
Rank
T.Rex+
T.Rex
Popularity
Content
Social
Recency
Click count
Results

View Slide

Conclusions
Tackle the big data problem on the Web by designing
large scale Web mining algorithms for DISC systems
Address classical problems like similarity, matching and
recommendation in the context of Web mining with
large, heterogeneous datasets
Provide novel, efﬁcient and scalable solutions for the
MapReduce and streaming programming models

View Slide

Conclusions
Similarity of bags of Web pages:
SSJ-2 and SSJ-2R 4.5x faster than state-of-the-art
Importance of careful design of MR algorithms
Matching of Web 2.0 content on graphs:
StackMR and GreedyMR iterative MR algorithms with
provable approximation guarantees
First solution to b-matching problem in MR
Scalable computation pattern for graph mining in MR
Personalized recommendation of news from streams:
T.Rex predicts user interest from real-time social Web
Parallelizable online stream + graph mining

View Slide

Thanks

View Slide

Similarity Self-Join

View Slide

SSJ-2 Example

View Slide

shufﬂe
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
SSJ-2 Example

View Slide

shuffle
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
1
,1)>
1
,1)>
2
,2)>
3
,2)>
3
,1)>
map
d
1
"A A B C"
map
d
2
"B D D"
map
d
3
"A B B C"
1
,1),
(d
3
,2)]>
1
,1),
(d
3
,1)]>
2
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing
SSJ-2 Example
shuffle
,d3
), 2>
,d3
), 1>
,d3
), [2,1]> reduce ,d3
), 5>
HDFS
d3
"A B B C"
d1
"A A B C"
Similarity
map
map
map
shuffle
,1),
(d3
,2)]>
,1),
(d3
,1)]>
,2)]>
,1)>
,1)>
,2)>
,2)>
,1)>
map
d1
"A A B C"
map
d2
"B D D"
map
d3
"A B B C"
,1),
(d3
,2)]>
,1),
(d3
,1)]>
,2)]>
reduce
reduce
reduce
Indexing

View Slide

SSJ-2
Pruned Indexed
Pruned Indexed
d
i
d
j
bi
bj
|L|
0

View Slide

SSJ-2
Pruned Indexed
Pruned Indexed
d
i
d
j
bi
bj
|L|
0
• Indexing &
Preﬁx ﬁltering

View Slide

SSJ-2
Pruned Indexed
Pruned Indexed
d
i
d
j
bi
bj
|L|
0
• Indexing &
Preﬁx ﬁltering
• Need to retrieve
pruned part

View Slide

SSJ-2
Pruned Indexed
Pruned Indexed
d
i
d
j
bi
bj
|L|
0
• Indexing &
Preﬁx ﬁltering
pruned part
• Actually, retrieve
the whole
documents

View Slide

SSJ-2
Pruned Indexed
Pruned Indexed
d
i
d
j
bi
bj
|L|
0
• Indexing &
Preﬁx ﬁltering
pruned part
• Actually, retrieve
the whole
documents
• 2 remote (DFS)
I/O per pair

View Slide

SSJ-2R
di
; (di, dj), WA
ij
; (di, dj), WB
ij
; (di, dk), WA
ik
; . . .

group by key di
dj
; (dj, dk), WA
jk
; (dj, dk), WB
jk
; (dj, dl), WA
jl
; . . .

group by key dj
Remainder file =
pruned part of the input
Pre-load remainder file in
memory, no further disk I/O
Shuffle the input together with
the partial similarity scores
Pruned Indexed
Pruned Indexed
d
i
d
j
bi
bj
|L|
0

View Slide

(d0
,d1
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d3
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d4
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d2
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,!),[t1
,t2
,t3
...]
SSJ-2R Reducer
Reduce Input
Sort pairs on both IDs,
group on ﬁrst
(Secondary Sort)
Only 1 reducer reads d0
Remainder ﬁle contains
only the useful portion
of the other documents
(about 10%)

View Slide

(d0
,d1
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d3
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d4
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d2
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,!),[t1
,t2
,t3
...]
SSJ-2R Reducer
Whole document
shufﬂed via MR
Reduce Input
group on ﬁrst
(Secondary Sort)
(about 10%)

View Slide

(d0
,d1
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d3
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d4
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d2
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,!),[t1
,t2
,t3
...]
SSJ-2R Reducer
Whole document
shuffled via MR
Remainder file
preloaded in memory
Reduce Input
group on first
(Secondary Sort)
(about 10%)

View Slide

Results
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Time (seconds)
Number of GRFXPHQWV
Running time
Elsayed et al.
SSJ-2
Vernica et al.
SSJ-2R

View Slide

(d0
,d1
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d3
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d4
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,d2
),[w1
,w2
,w3
...]
(d0
,!),[t1
,t2
,t3
...]
(d0
,!),[t1
,t2
,t3
...]
Partitioning
K=2
• Split in K slices
• Each reducer needs to
load only 1/K of the
remainder ﬁle
• Need to replicate the input
K times

View Slide

Map phase
0
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Number of !"#$%&'()
0
5
15
(a)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Time (seconds)
Number of !"#$%&'()
Avg. Map Running time
Elsayed et al.
SSJ-2
Vernica et al.
SSJ-2R
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Time (seconds)
(c)
0
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Number of !"#$%&'()
0
5
15
(a)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Time (seconds)
Number of !"#$%&'()
Avg. Map Running time
Elsayed et al.
SSJ-2
Vernica et al.
SSJ-2R
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Time (seconds)
(c)

View Slide

Map phase
1
10
100
1000
100 1000
Number of lists
max=6600
Elsayed et al.
1
10
100
1000
Number of lists
max=1729
SSJ-2R
1
10
100
1000
100 1000
Number of lists
max=6600
Elsayed et al.
1
10
100
1000
Number of lists
max=1729
SSJ-2R

View Slide

Map phase
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (seconds)
Mapper
Map times (threshold=0.9)
Elsayed et al.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (seconds)
Mapper
Map times (threshold=0.9)
Elsayed et al.

View Slide

Reduce phase
000 65000
0
5
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Number of !"#$%&'(s
(b)
000 65000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000
Time (seconds)
Number of !"#$%&'(s
Avg. )&!$#& Running time
Elsayed et al.
SSJ-2
Vernica et al.
SSJ-2R
(d)

View Slide

Social Content Matching

View Slide

System overview
The application operates in consecutive phases
(each phase in the range from hours to days)
Before the beginning of the ith phase,
the application makes a tentative allocation of items to users
Capacity constraints
User: an estimate of the number of logins during the ith phase
Items: proportional to a quality assessment or constant
B =

c∈C
b(c) =

t∈T
b(t)

View Slide

Graph building
Edge weight is the cosine similarity between some
vector representations of the item and the consumer w
(ti, cj) = v(ti ) · v(cj)
Prune the candidate edges O(|T||C|) by discarding low
weight edges (we want to maximize the total weight)
Similarity join between T and C in MapReduce

View Slide

StackMR
Primal-dual formulation of the problem
(Integer Linear Programming)
Compute a maximal ⌈∊b⌉-matching in parallel
Push it in the stack, update dual variables and
remove covered edges
When there are no more edges, pop the whole stack
and include edges in the solution layer by layer
For efﬁciency, allows (1+∊) violations on capacity constraints

View Slide

StackMR Example

View Slide

GreedyMR
Adaptation in MR of a classical greedy algorithm
(sort the edges by weight, include the current edge if
it maintains the constraints and update the capacities)
At each round, each node proposes its top weighting b(v)
edges to its neighbors
The intersection between the proposal of each node and the
ones of its neighbors is included in the solution
Capacities are updated in parallel
Yields a feasible sub-optimal solution at each round

View Slide

StackGreedyMR
Hybrid approach
Same structure as StackMR
Uses a greedy heuristic in one of the randomized
phases, when choosing the edges to propose
We tried also with a proportional heuristic, but the
results were always worse than with the greedy one
Mixed results overall

View Slide

Algorithms summary
Approximation
guarantee
MR rounds
Capacity
violations
StackMR
GreedyMR
⅙
poly-
logarithmic
1+∊
½ linear no

View Slide

Vector representation
Bag-of-words model
ﬂickr users: set of tags used in all photos
ﬂickr items (photos): set of tags
Y! Answers users: set of words used in all answers
Y! Answers items (questions): set of words
Y! Answers: stopword removal, stemming, tf-idf

View Slide

Conclusions
2 algorithms with different trade offs between result
quality and efﬁciency
StackMR scales to very large datasets, has provable
poly-logarithmic complexity and is faster in practice,
capacity violations are negligible
GreedyMR yields higher quality results, has ½
approximation and can be stopped at any time

View Slide

Personalized Online News
Recommendation

View Slide

90% of the
clicks
happen
within 2
days from
publication
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1 10 100 1000 10000
Minutes
News-click delay
!"#$%&'()'(**"&&%!*%+
,%-+.*/0*1'2%/34'20+5&0$"50(!
News Get Old Soon

View Slide

Builds a user model from Twitter
Signals from user generated content, social neighbors and
popularity across Twitter and news
Deep personalization based on entities (overcomes
vocabulary mismatch, easier to model relevance)
Learn a personalized news ranking function
Pick up candidates from a pool of related or popular fresh
news, rank them and present top-k to the user
T.Rex
Twitter-based news recommendation system

View Slide

Ranking function is user and time dependent
Social model + Content model + Popularity model
Social model weights the content model of neighbors
by a truncated PageRank on the Twitter network
Content model measures relatedness of user’s tweet
stream and news article represented as bag-of-entities
Popularity model tracks entity popularity by the number
of mentions in Twitter and news (exponential forgetting)
Rτ (u, n) = α · Στ (u, n) + β · Γτ (u, n) + γ · Πτ (n)
Recommendation Model

View Slide

Entities
News
Tweets
Content Model Γ
!"#"$"%"&!"#$%$!!'()*+!&'!(#$!)*+($+(!
%$,$-.+)$!*/!+$"'!,
*"
/*%!0'$%!-
(
1
Social Model Σ!
."#"/0"%"$"%"&!"#$%$!.'()*+!&'!(#$!
'*)&.,!%$,$-.+)$!*/!+$"'!,
*"
/*%!0'$%!-
(
1
Popularity Model Π
1"#"2"%"3!"#$%$"1'*+!&'!(#$!
2*20,.%&(3!*/!+$"'!.%(&),$!,
*
1
$'()*+"#"4!&4!-
(!
&'!(#$!
.0(#*%!*/!5"$$(!5
*
U
T
!"#!.0(#*%'#&2!6.(%&7
/'()*+"#"4!&4!-
(!
&'!
&+($%$'($8!&+!
(#$!)*+($+(!
2%*80)$8!93!-
*
U
U
""#"'*)&.,!6.(%&7
o a user-dependent relevance criteria. We also aim at
e recency into our model, so that our recommendations
ently published news articles.
ed to model the factors that affect the relevance of news
We first model the social-network aspect. In our case,
ent is induced by the twitter following relationship. We
social network adjacency matrix, were S(i, j) is equal
e number of users followed by user ui
if ui
follows uj
,
We also adopt a functional ranking (Baeza-Yates et al.,
the interests of a user among its neighbors recursively.
aximum hop distance d, we define the social influence
llows.
al influence S∗). Given a set of users U = {u0, u1, . . .},
al network where each user may express an interest to the
y another user, we define the social influence model S∗ as the
here S∗(i, j) measures the interest of user ui
to the content
j
and it is computed as
S∗ =

i=d

i=1
σiSi

,
normalized adjacency matrix of the social network, d is the
nce up to which users may influence their neighbors, and σ
'*)&.,!
&+($%$'(
/0'()*+!:!,$-$,!*/!&+($%$'(!*/!-
(
!
(*!(#$!)*+($+(!2%*80)$8!93!-
*
1
Z = 6,5(57"89:;6"*+(*!"#&)#!
T!.+8"N!.%$!6.22$81
;$!0'$!;&*0%!$+(&(3!'2.)$1
>28.($8!93!
(%.)6$+(&*+'!&+!
+$"'!.+8!
5"&(($%!"&(#!
$72*+$+(&.,!
8$).31
Z
2'(+"#!2*20,.%&(3!*/!$+(&(3!<
(
#"#!2*20,.%&(3!-$)(*%
&'()*+"#"
%$,.($8+$''!*/!
5"$$(!5
(!
(*!+$"'!,
*
T
N
$"#"("$$(?(*?+$"'
!6.(%&7
$%&%'%(%)
='()*+"#!
%$,.($8+$''!
*/!5"$$(!5
("
(*!
$+(&(3!<
*
T
Z
'"#!5"$$(!6.(%&7
3'()*+"#!%$,.($8+$''!*/!!
$+(&(3!<
("
(*!+$"'!,
*
Z
N
)"#!+$"'!6.(%&7
Recommendation Model

View Slide

Learning to rank approach with SVM
Each time the user clicks on a news, we learn a set of
preferences (clicked_news > non_clicked_news):
Prune the number of constraints for scalability:
only news published in the last 2 days
only take the top-k news for each ranking component
T.Rex+ includes additional features: click count, age.
τ ≤ c(ni) < c(nj) then Rτ (u, ni) > Rτ (u, nj)
Learning the Weights

View Slide

User generated content is a good predictor albeit sparse
Click Count is a strong baseline but does not help T.Rex+
Table 5.2: MRR, precision and coverage.
Algorithm MRR [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Coverage
RECENCY 0.020 0.002 0.018 0.036 1.000
CLICKCOUNT 0.059 0.024 0.086 0.135 1.000
SOCIAL 0.017 0.002 0.018 0.036 0.606
CONTENT 0.107 0.029 0.171 0.286 0.158
POPULARITY 0.008 0.003 0.005 0.012 1.000
T.REX 0.107 0.073 0.130 0.168 1.000
T.REX+ 0.109 0.062 0.146 0.189 1.000
ENCY: it ranks news articles by time of publication (most recent
CKCOUNT: it ranks news articles by click count (highest count ﬁ
!"#$%&"'()*+'#,%$-.%/*"'(0(+$%#$1%2+3"*#4"5
Mean Reciprocal Rank, Precision and Coverage
Predicting Clicked News

View Slide

Big Data and the Web: Algorithms for Data Intensive Scalable Computing

Big Data and the Web: Algorithms for Data Intensive Scalable Computing

Gianmarco De Francisci Morales

More Decks by Gianmarco De Francisci Morales

Other Decks in Research

Featured

Transcript