Data Science of Love

InfoQ.com: News & Community Site
• 750,000 unique visitors/month
• Published in 4 languages (English, Chinese, Japanese and Brazilian
Portuguese)
• Post content from our QCon conferences
• News 15-20 / week
• Articles 3-4 / week
• Presentations (videos) 12-15 / week
• Interviews 2-3 / week
• Books 1 / month
Watch the video with slide
synchronization on InfoQ.com!
http://www.infoq.com/presentations
/eharmony-hadoop

Presented at QCon New York
www.qconnewyork.com
Purpose of QCon
- to empower software development by facilitating the spread of
knowledge and innovation
Strategy
- practitioner-driven conference designed for YOU: influencers of
change and innovation in your teams
- speakers and topics driving the evolution and innovation
- connecting and catalyzing the influencers and innovators
Highlights
- attended by more than 12,000 delegates since 2007
- held in 9 cities worldwide

Data Science of Love
Vaclav Petricek @petricek
Wednesday, June 12, 13

The eHarmony Difference › Who we are
~45% Tech

~15% Customer Care
~45% Tech

~15% Customer Care
~45% Tech
~10% Marketing

The eHarmony Difference › Compatibility Matching System®

Compatibility Matching
System®

System®
Compatibility
Matching
1

System®
Compatibility
Matching
1
Affinity
Matching
2

System®
Match
Distribution
3
Compatibility
Matching
1
Affinity
Matching
2

The eHarmony Difference

Affinity
Matching
Match
Distribution
2 3
Compatibility
Matching
1

150

ques)ons

150

ques)ons
Personality
Values
A5ributes
Beliefs

Compatibility Matching › Obstreperousness

Compatibility Matching › Romantic

CMP (CMP Makes Pairings)

CMP (CMP Makes Pairings)
Compa)bility

Models

Compatibility Matching ›

Match
Distribution
3
Compatibility
Matching
1
Affinity
Matching
2

Match
Distribution
3
Compatibility
Matching
1
Affinity
Matching
2
Layers on Top of

Affinity Matching ›

61 21

61 21
3000

………

Affinity Matching › Distance
Prob(

)

Affinity Matching › Distance

Affinity Matching › Height difference
Prob(

) 4
-‐
8
in
cm

Affinity Matching › “Attractiveness”
Prob(

)

Affinity Matching › Zoom level

25% -‐1%-‐1% -‐24% 20% 13%
9% -‐5%-‐5% -‐27% 7% 0%9% -‐5%-‐5% -‐27% 7% 0%
-‐12% -‐21%-‐21% -‐42% -‐19% -‐23%
19% 0%0% -‐28% 28% 10%
9% -‐11%-‐11% -‐35% 11% 44%
Affinity Matching › Food preference

~40M
registered
users
~10^7
matches
per
day
~10^3
a5ributes
...
...
Prob( | data)
?
~10^8
daily
Prob( | features)

~40M
registered
users
~10^7
matches
per
day
~10^3
a5ributes
...
...
Prob( | data)
?
~10^8
daily
Prob( | features)
Unsupervised
features
(LDA,
classiﬁers)
Constructed
features

1TB RAM

Maestro: Data
Protocol
Buﬀers
distcp

Modeling: Maestro
UserMatchCommunica)on
feature
expansion
Sparse

ML
format
models

Modeling: Model parametrizations
Model
parameters
features
weights
tree
splits
Calibra)on
Spline
DISTANCE:534

Modeling: Model parametrizations
Model
parameters
features
weights
tree
splits
Calibra)on
Spline
DISTANCE:534
DSL

Modeling: Scala DSL
“same_religion”:”${user.profile.religion}=={cand.profile.religion}”
“cmp_drinking”:”cmp(${user.profile.drinking},{cand.profile.drinking})”
<
“strict_distance_u”:”${user.profile.accepted_distance}<={pairing.distance}”
60miles

750M
Compressed
Protocol
Buﬀers
Production: Spring Conductor
Map-‐side
joins
(TB)
Matching
User
Serice
Pairings
Browser

Service
1+G
Compressed
Protocol
Buﬀers

Scorer

?
Production: FeatureX (expensive features)
FeatureX
LSH
NLP
Voldemort
backed

Service

Production: User Activity Service
User
Ac)vity
Service
10K
events/s
Matching
User
Service
~5ms
response
?
Event
Listener

eHarmony & OpenSource
github.com/petricek/datatools
github.com/eHarmony/seeking
github.com/eHarmony/hive
springsource.org/spring-‐data/hadoop
github.com/JohnLangford/vowpal_wabbit

Compatibility
Matching
1
Affinity
Matching
2
Match
Distribution
3

Compatibility
Matching
1
Affinity
Matching
2
Match
Distribution
3
Delivering the right
matches at the right
time to as many people
as possible across the
entire network.

Match Distribution › Graph optimization

2 2

2 21

2 21Prob( | data)

2 2Prob( | data)

Resulting Customer Experience › Guided
Communication

? !
Resulting Customer Experience › Guided
Communication

Resulting Customer Experience › Success!

eHarmony Results › The eHarmony Impact
2005
90
eHarmony Members
Married Every Day

2005 2007
236
eHarmony Members
Married Every Day

2005 2007 2009
542
eHarmony Members
Married Every Day

Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences

Press coverage

Since
2005,
about
1/3
of
couples

who
have
married
in
the
US

have
met
online
(35%)
*
according
to
survey
of
couples
married
between
2005-‐2012
by
Harris
InteracQve
for
eHarmony

Rates of breakup or divorce
0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
All Online Offline
*
according
to
survey
of
couples
married
between
2005-‐2012
by
Harris
InteracQve
for
eHarmony

The
largest
number

of
marriages
surveyed

who
met
via
online
da)ng

had
met
on
eHarmony
(25%)
*
according
to
survey
of
couples
married
between
2005-‐2012
by
Harris
InteracQve
for
eHarmony

0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
eHarmony All Other Online Offline
*
according
to
survey
of
couples
married
between
2005-‐2012
by
by
Harris
InteracQve
for
eHarmony

0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
eHarmony All Other Online Offline
*
according
to
survey
of
couples
married
between
2005-‐2012
by
by
Harris
InteracQve
for
eHarmony
@petricek
linkedin.com/in/petricek
bit.ly/jobateharmony

Watch the video with slide synchronization on
InfoQ.com!
http://www.infoq.com/presentations/eharmony
-hadoop

Data Science of Love

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (8)

Mehr von C4Media

Mehr von C4Media (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Data Science of Love