The Chicago dataset does not include data from ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft, but the data makes clear that taxi usage in Chicago has declined dramatically since 2014. As of November 2016, Chicago taxi usage was declining at a 35% annual rate, and had fallen a cumulative 55% since peaking in June 2014.
Again, the public dataset does not include any data from ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft, but the Chicago taxi industry claims that ridesharing services caused cabs to lose 30–40% of their business in the summer of 2015.
New York taxis have also been losing market share to ridesharing companies—NYC releases data that confirms this—but in fact Chicago taxis are losing market share even faster than their NYC counterparts. While NYC taxi usage has been declining at around 10% per year, Chicago’s declines have reached 35% yearoveryear.
New York taxis make about 8 times more trips per month than Chicago taxis do, but a rescaled monthly trips index shows that Chicago has a larger cumulative decline on a percentage basis.
Chicago’s taxi pickup declines are not evenly distributed among the city’s 77 community areas. For example, the Loop, Chicago’s central business district, shows a 23% annual decline, while Logan Square on the northwest side shows a 50% annual decline. In general, the areas located closest to the central business district show smaller declines in taxi activity.
I defined 5 particular community areas—the Loop, Near North Side, Near West Side, Near South Side, and O’Hare Airport—as the “core”, then compared pickups inside and outside of the core. As of November 2016, pickups inside the core show a 27% annual decline compared to a 42% annual decline outside of the core. On a cumulative basis, core pickups have declined 39% since June 2014, while noncore pickups have declined a whopping 65%. The smaller taxi decline near the central business district is consistent with NYC’s taxi and Uber data, where taxi share has fallen less in Manhattan than in the outer boroughs.
Data by community area is available here in spreadsheet form.
A map of the official community area definitions is available here, and you can select community areas in the menu below to view taxi pickups since 2013.
Chicago’s public taxi data, unlike New York’s, includes anonymized taxi medallion numbers for each trip. This makes it possible to do things like:
The Chicago dataset is also missing some of the details provided by New York, though this is explicitly for the purpose of privacy, and is probably on the whole a good thing.
The number of taxis that make at least one pickup per month has declined nearly 30%, from a peak of over 5,000 to 3,600 more recently.
Since taxi trips have declined by 55% over a time period when unique taxis have declined by 29%, that means fewer trips per day for each active taxi. Active taxis used to average 20 trips per day, but more recently have averaged 13 trips per day.
A histogram of daily trips per taxi shows a bit of a right skew, with a mean of 18 and median of 16 trips per day over the entire dataset. On the plus side for taxis, average fares have increased over time, at least partially due to a 15% fare increase in early 2016, and so the decline in total fares collected per taxi per day is not as large.
With anonymized medallion numbers, we can see when and where a taxi picked up its next fare after making a drop off. For each drop off, I looked at the time of the next pickup, and calculated the percentage of drop offs in each area that were followed by a new pickup within 30 minutes. For privacy reasons, trip timestamps are all rounded to 15minute intervals, so this calculation is not exact, but it should be close enough.
Sure enough, nearly 80% of drop offs in central business districts are followed by a pickup within 30 minutes, while as little as 20% of drop offs in more remote areas, e.g. airports, are followed by pickups within 30 minutes.
This basic analysis doesn’t necessarily imply that it’s a bad thing for a taxi to make a trip from the Loop to O’Hare. It’s true that it’s less likely for a taxi to get a new fare after dropping off at the airport, but a more thorough analysis would have to take into account that fares to the airport are higher than average, and so the question becomes whether that higher fare is enough to offset the longer wait time after drop off. Time of day and day of week might also be relevant, and should be considered in a more complete analysis.
I’m not a native Chicagoan, but you don’t have to be one to know that the Cubs winning the 2016 World Series was a big deal. I grabbed the 2013–2016 Cubs home game schedules from Baseball Reference and compared taxi drop offs near Wrigley Field on game days to nongame days.
Not surprisingly, taxis do more business around Wrigley Field on game days. Total drop offs have declined since 2013—remember taxis have lost market share everywhere—but more interesting is to look at the patterns within each season. In particular the 2016 championship team generated the most taxi activity during the World Series games in October, when in previous seasons peak taxi activity had been during the midsummer months.
Chicago’s dataset is missing some of the details provided by New York, most notably:
All timestamps are rounded to the nearest 15minute interval, and instead of latitude/longitude, the data includes census tract and community area identifiers. Furthermore, census tracts are only included when there are multiple trips within the same tract over the same 15minute interval.
The press release announcing the dataset’s publication specifically points out that these measures were taken to protect privacy, presumably of both drivers and riders. I think on the whole it’s a good thing, even if it means that there won’t be any fancy maps of the Chicago trips, frankly that’s a small price to pay.
Still, anonymizing data is a very hard problem, and it seems like the Chicago dataset has not completely eliminated the risk. If we define a “uniquely identifiable” trip as one where there was exactly one pickup or drop off in a community area over the course of an hour, then 66% of all taxis in the dataset made at least one uniquely identifiable trip.
That means, for example, if you got into a taxi in some area at some time, recorded its medallion number, then later checked the data and there was only one pick up in that area during that hour, then you could map that particular “anonymized” medallion number to the actual medallion number. It might be impractical to find the real medallion numbers for these uniquely identifiable trips—you wouldn’t know the trip was uniquely identifiable until well after the fact—but with the proliferation of cameras and computer vision technology, it’s not that farfetched either.
Even though only 0.7% of the trips in the dataset are uniquely identifiable by my definition, taxis that made at least one uniquely identifiable trip account for nearly 98% of the total trips. Again, this isn’t to say that I or anyone else has managed to deanonymize the data, but it’s a reminder that even when goodfaith efforts are made to anonymize data, it’s extremely difficult to do it well.
Uber and New York are currently fighting over data disclosure, with the city asking for more data from Uber for planning and regulatory purposes, and Uber refusing to provide it because NYC has done a bad job protecting privacy in the past. Chicago’s privacy measures are not perfect: there might still be ways to deanonymize the data, and just the fact that they have more detailed data means there’s a risk of accidental or malicious release. But in my mind the Chicago data strikes an appropriate balance, on the one hand enabling analysis that could lead to real insights and quality of life improvements, while simultaneously protecting the privacy of those involved. New York could do worse than adopt a similar approach.
All code used in this post is available on GitHub.
It turns out that the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade, made famous (at least in my adolescent mind) by The Fugitive, is the day with the most taxi trips in Chicago every year since 2013. Per IMDb, director and Chicago native Andrew Davis specifically wanted to capture the parade, though part of me now thinks that Dr. Richard Kimble should have ducked out by way of taxi…
]]>The show’s longevity, and the fact that it’s animated, provides a vast and relatively unchanging universe of characters to study. It’s easier for an animated show to scale to hundreds of recurring characters; without liveaction actors to grow old or move on to other projects, the denizens of Springfield remain mostly unchanged from year to year.
As a fan of the show, I present a few short analyses about Springfield, from the show’s dialogue to its TV ratings. All code used for this post is available on GitHub.
Simpsons World provides a delightful trove of content for fans. In addition to streaming every episode, the site includes episode guides, scripts, and audio commentary. I wrote code to parse the available episode scripts and attribute every word of dialogue to a character, then ranked the characters by number of words spoken in the history of the show.
The top four are, not surprisingly, the Simpson nuclear family.
If you want to quiz yourself, pause here and try to name the next 5 biggest characters in order before looking at the answers…
Of course Homer ranks first: he’s the undisputed most iconic character, and he accounts for 21% of the show’s 1.3 million words spoken through season 26. Marge, Bart, and Lisa—in that order—combine for another 26%, giving the Simpson family a 47% share of the show’s dialogue.
If we exclude the Simpson nuclear family and focus on the top 50 supporting characters, the results become a bit less predictable, if not exactly surprising.
Mr. Burns speaks the most words among supporting cast members, followed by Moe, Principal Skinner, Ned Flanders, and Krusty rounding out the top 5.
The colors of the bars in the above graphs represent gender: blue for male characters, red for female. If we look at the supporting cast, the 14 most prominent characters are all male before we get to the first woman, Mrs. Krabappel, and only 5 of the top 50 supporting cast members are women.
Women account for 25% of the dialogue on The Simpsons, including Marge and Lisa, two of the show’s main characters. If we remove the Simpson nuclear family, things look even more lopsided: women account for less than 10% of the supporting cast’s dialogue.
A look at the show’s list of writers reveals that 9 of the top 10 writers are male. I did not collect data on which writers wrote which episodes, but it would make for an interesting followup to see if the episodes written by women have a more equal distribution of dialogue between male and female characters.
The scripts also include each scene’s setting, which I used to compute the locations with the most dialogue.
The location data is a bit messy to work with—should “Simpson Living Room” really be treated differently than “Simpson Home”—but nevertheless it paints a picture of where people spend time in Springfield: at home, school, work, and the local bar.
Per Wikipedia:
While later seasons would focus on Homer, Bart was the lead character in most of the first three seasons
I’ve heard this argument before, that the show was originally about Bart before switching its focus to Homer, but the actual scripts only seem to partially support it.
Bart accounted for a significantly larger share of the show’s dialogue in season 1 than in any future season, but Homer’s share has always been higher than Bart’s. Dialogue share might not tell the whole story about a character’s prominence, but the fact is that Homer has always been the most talkative character on the show.
Historical Nielsen ratings data is hard to come by, so I relied on Wikipedia for Simpsons episodelevel television viewership data.
Viewership appears to jump in 2000, between seasons 11 and 12, but closer inspection reveals that’s when the Wikipedia data switches from reporting households to individuals. I don’t know the reason for the switch—it might have something to do with Nielsen’s measurement or reporting—but without any other data sources it’s difficult to confirm.
Aside from that bump, which is most likely a data artifact, not a real trend, it’s clear that the show’s ratings are trending lower. The early seasons averaged over 20 million viewers per episode, including Bart Gets an “F”, the first episode of season 2, which is still the mostwatched episode in the show’s history with an estimated 33.6 million viewers. The more recent seasons have averaged less than 5 million viewers per episode, more than an 80% decline since the show’s beginnings.
Although the ratings data looks bad for The Simpsons, it doesn’t tell the whole story: TV ratings for individual shows have been broadly declining for over 60 years.
When The Simpsons came out in 1989, the highest 30 rated shows on TV averaged a 17.7 Nielsen rating, meaning that 17.7% of televisionequipped households tuned in to the average top 30 show. In 2014–15, the highest 30 rated shows managed an 8.7 average rating, a decline of 50% over that 25 year span.
If we go all the way back to the 1951, the top 30 shows averaged a 38.2 rating, which is more than triple the single highestrated program of 2014–15 (NBC’s Sunday Night Football, which averaged a 12.3 rating).
Full data for the top 30 shows by season is available here on GitHub
I have no proof for the cause of this decline in the average Nielsen rating of a top 30 show, but intuitively it must be related to the proliferation of channels. TV viewers in the 1950s had a small handful of channels to choose from, while modern viewers have hundreds if not thousands of choices, not to mention streaming options, which present their own ratings measurement challenges.
We could normalize Simpsons episode ratings by the declining top 30 curve to adjust for the fact that it’s more difficult for any one show to capture as large a share of the TV audience over time. But as mentioned earlier, the normalization would only account for about a 50% decline in ratings since 1989, while The Simpsons ratings have declined more like 8085% over that horizon.
Alas, I must confess, I stopped watching the show around season 12, and Simpsons World’s episode view counts suggest that modern streaming viewers are more interested in the early seasons too, so it could just be that people are losing interest.
As I write this, The Simpsons is under contract to be produced for one more season, though it’s entirely possible it will be renewed. But ultimately Troy McClure said it best at the conclusion of the The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular, which, it’s hard to believe, now covers less than 25% of the show’s history:
Term frequency–inverse document frequency is a popular technique used to determine which words are most significant to a document that is itself part of a larger corpus. In our case, the documents are individual episode scripts, and the corpus is the collection of all scripts.
The idea behind tf–idf is to find words or phrases that occur frequently within a single document, but rarely within the overall corpus. To use a specific example from The Simpsons, the phrase “dental plan” appears 19 times in Last Exit to Springfield, but only once throughout the rest of the show, and sure enough the tf–idf algorithm identifies “dental plan” as the most relevant phrase from that episode.
I used R’s tidytext package to pull out the single word or phrase with the highest tf–idf rank for each episode; here’s the relevant section of code.
The results are pretty good, and should be at least slightly entertaining to fans of the show. Beyond “dental plan”, there are fanfavorites including “kwyjibo”, “down the well”, “monorail”, “I didn’t do it”, and “Dr. Zaius”, though to be fair, there are also some less iconic results.
You can see the full list of episodes and “most relevant phrases” here.
Another interesting followup could be to use more sophisticated techniques to write more complete episode summaries based on the scripts, but I was pleasantly surprised by the relevance of the comparatively simple tf–idf approach.
All code used in this post is available on GitHub, and the screencaps come from the amazing Frinkiac
]]>I’ve updated the nyctaxidata GitHub repository with code to fetch and process the summary reports, and you can return here for updates in the future: the graphs on this page will update every month as the TLC releases more data.
The summary data includes the number of trips taken by yellow taxis and forhire vehicles:
This graph will continue to update as the TLC releases additional data, but at the time I wrote this in April 2016, the most recent data shows yellow taxis provided 60,000 fewer trips per day in January 2016 compared to one year earlier, while Uber provided 70,000 more trips per day over the same time horizon.
Although the Uber data only begins in 2015, if we zoom out to 2010, it’s even more apparent that yellow taxis are losing market share.
The summary reports also include the total number of vehicles dispatched by each service:
Again this graph will update in the future when more data is available, but as of January 2016 there are just over 13,000 yellow taxis in New York, a number that is strictly regulated by the taxi medallion system. Uber has grown from 10,000 vehicles dispatched per week at the beginning of 2015 to over 25,000 in January 2016, while Lyft accounts for another 5,000.
However, the Uber/Lyft numbers might not be as dramatic as they seem: the TLC’s data does not indicate how many days per week Uber/Lyft vehicles work, only the total number of trips per week and the total number of vehicles that made at least one trip.
A study by Jonathan Hall and Alan Krueger reported that 42% of UberX drivers in New York work fewer than 15 hours per week, while another 35% work 16–34 hours per week. If those numbers are true, then a very rough guess might be that about half of those 25,000 vehicles make at least one pickup on any given day.
Yellow taxi utilization rates are much higher: the TLC statistics report that the average medallion is active 29 days per month, 14 hours per day (note that multiple drivers can share a medallion).
The controversial question is whether the influx of Uber, Lyft, and other forhire vehicles has worsened congestion problems in NYC. I’ll stay out of that kerfuffle for now, but at least the popular narrative is that the city’s study did not blame Uber for increased congestion in Manhattan.
It would be interesting to look at the triplevel taxi data to see if taxi rides from point A to point B have gotten slower over the years in various parts of the city. But even if they have, it would be difficult if not impossible to blame it on forhire vehicles—or any other single factor—using only the triplevel taxi data.
Lyft is probably the most wellknown Uber competitor, but there are others. Via, Juno, and Gett are among the newer ridesharing services to operate in NYC, and they report data to the TLC too.
Update 4/26/16: apparently there was a data reporting error between Lyft and the TLC in January 2016, which has now been corrected. When I originally wrote this post, the Lyft graph looked like this. Based on the revised data, it does not appear that Lyft usage declined in early 2016.
Uber’s revenue numbers are not publicly disclosed, but we can piece together different bits of information to arrive at a very rough estimate for Uber’s New York revenue in 2015:
That gives us (36.3 * $25 * 0.22) = $200 million estimated revenue for Uber in NYC in 2015.
UberX’s recent NYC fare cut will probably increase demand for rides while lowering the average fare. Simultaneously Uber might charge higher commissions, and who knows how surge pricing trends might evolve. I doubt we’ll see too many public data points surrounding revenue, but maybe there will be enough to continue the “rough estimate” game.
It will be interesting to see what happens in 2016. Like many New Yorkers, I’ll be curious to see if Uber continues to gain market share, if yellow taxis do anything to stanch their wounds, and if Lyft—or any other newcomers—can muscle their way into the ranks of the major players.
]]>BallR lets you select a player and season, then creates a customizable chart that shows shot patterns across the court. Additionally, it calculates aggregate statistics like field goal percentage and points per shot attempt, and compares the selected player to league averages at different areas of the court.
Analyze your favorite players in the app below:
It’s very easy to run the app on your own computer, all you have to do is paste the following lines into an R console:
1 2 3 4 

BallR lets you choose from 3 primary chart types: hexagonal, scatter, and heat map. You can toggle between them using the radio buttons in the app’s sidebar.
Hexagonal charts, popularized by Kirk Goldsberry at Grantland, group shots into hexagonal regions, then calculate aggregate statistics within each hexagon. Hexagon sizes and opacities are proportional to the number of shots taken within each hexagon, while the color scale represents a metric of your choice, which can be one of:
For example, here’s Stephen Curry’s FG% relative to the league average within each region of the court during the 2015–16 season:
The chart confirms the obvious: Stephen Curry is a great shooter. His 3point field goal percentage is more than 11 percentage points above the league average, and he also scores more efficiently than average when closer to the basket.
Compare to another alltime great, Kobe Bryant, who has been shooting poorly this season:
Kobe’s shot chart shows that he’s shooting below the league average from most areas of the court, especially 3point range (Kobe’s 2005–06 shot chart, on the other hand, looks much nicer).
Scatter charts are the most straightforward option: they plot each shot as a single point, colorcoding for whether the shot was made or missed. Here’s an example again for Stephen Curry:
Heat maps use twodimensional kernel density estimation to show the distribution of a player’s shot attempts across the court.
Anecdotally I’ve found that heat maps often show that most shot attempts are taken in the restricted area near the basket, even for players you might think of as outside shooters. BallR lets you apply filter to focus on specific areas of the court, and it’s sometimes more interesting to filter out restricted area shots when generating heat maps. For example here’s the heat map of Stephen Curry’s shot attempts excluding shots from within the restricted area (see here for Curry’s unfiltered heat map):
The heat map shows that—at least when he’s not shooting from the restricted area—Curry attempts most of his shots from the “Above the break 3” zone, with a slight bias to right side of that area (confusingly, that’s his left, but the NBA Stats API calls it the “Right Center” of the court)
LeBron James even more heavily shoots from the restricted area, but when we filter out those shots, we see his favorite area is midrange to his right:
I was curious if this pattern of LeBron favoring his right side has always been so pronounced, so I took all 19,000+ regular season shots he’s attempted in his career since 2003, and calculated the percentage that came from the left, right, and center of the court in each season:
It’s a bit confusing because what the NBA Stats API calls the “right” side of the court is actually the left side of the court from LeBron’s perspective, but the data shows that in 2015–16, LeBron has taken significantly fewer shots from his left compared to previous seasons. The data also confirms that LeBron’s shooting performance in 2015–16 has been below his historical average from almost every distance:
The BallR app doesn’t currently have a good way to do these historical analyses ondemand, so I had to write additional R scripts, but a potential future improvement might be to create a backend that caches the shot data and exposes additional endpoints that aggregate data across seasons, teams, or maybe even the whole league.
There’s a ton of data not captured in shot charts, and it’s easy to draw unjustified conclusions when looking only at shot attempts and results. For example, you might look at a shot chart and think, “well, points per shot is highest in the restricted area, so teams should take more shots in the restricted area.”
You might even be right, but shot charts definitely don’t prove it. Passing or dribbling the ball into the restricted area probably increases the risk of a turnover, and that risk might more than offset the increase in field goal percentage compared to a longer shot, though we don’t know that based on shot charts alone.
Shot charts also don’t tell us anything about:
I’d imagine that NBA analysts try to quantify all of these factors and more when analyzing decisionmaking, and the NBA Stats API probably even provides some helpful data at various other undocumented endpoints. It could make for another area of future improvement to incorporate whatever additional data exists into the charts.
The BallR code is all opensource, if you’d like to contribute or just take a closer look, head over to the GitHub repo.
Posts by Savvas Tjortjoglou and Eduardo Maia about making NBA shot charts in Python and R, respectively, served as useful resources. Many of Kirk Goldsberry’s charts on Grantland also served as inspiration.
]]>In the conclusion of my post analyzing NYC taxi and Uber trips, I noted that Citi Bike, New York City’s bike share system, also releases public data, totaling 22.2 million rides from July 2013 through November 2015. With the recent news that the Citi Bike system topped 10 million rides in 2015, making it one of the world’s largest bike shares, it seemed like an opportune time to investigate the publicly available data.
Much like with the taxi and Uber post, I’ve split the analysis into sections, covering visualization, the relationship between cyclist age, gender, and Google Maps time estimates, modeling the impact of the weather on Citi Bike ridership, and more:
Code to download, process, and analyze the data is available on GitHub.
I took Citi Bike trips from Wednesday, September 16, 2015, and created an animation using the Torque.js library from CartoDB, assuming that every trip followed the recommended cycling directions from Google Maps. There were a total of 51,179 trips that day, but I excluded trips that started and ended at the same station, leaving 47,969 trips in the visualization. Every blue dot on the map represents a single Citi Bike trip, and the small orange dots represent the 493 Citi Bike stations scattered throughout the city:
Enable javascript or click through to view the full interactive animation. If you’re still having trouble, you can view a video of the visualization on YouTube
If you stare at the animation for a bit, you start to see some trends. My personal favorite spots to watch are the bridges that connect Brooklyn to Lower Manhattan. In the morning, beginning around 8 AM, you see a steady volume of bikes crossing from Brooklyn into Manhattan over the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg bridges. In the middle of the day, the bridges are generally less busy, then starting around 5:30 PM, we see the blue dots streaming from Manhattan back into Brooklyn, as riders leave their Manhattan offices to head back to their Brooklyn homes.
We can observe this phenomenon directly from the data, by looking at an hourly graph of trips that travel between Manhattan and the outer boroughs:
Sure enough, in the mornings there are more rides from Brooklyn to Manhattan than vice versa, while in the evenings there are more people riding from Manhattan to Brooklyn. For what it’s worth, most Citi Bike trips start and end in Manhattan. The overall breakdown since the program’s expansion in August 2015:
There are other distinct commuting patterns in the animation: the stretch of 1st Avenue heading north from 59th Street has very little Citi Bike traffic in the morning, but starting around 5 PM the volume picks up as people presumably head home from their Midtown offices to the Upper East Side.
Similarly, if we look during the morning rush at the parallel stretches of 1st and 2nd avenues stretching from the Lower East Side through Murray Hill, there’s clearly more volume heading north along 1st Avenue heading into Midtown. In the evening there’s more volume heading south along 2nd Avenue, as workers head home to the residential neighborhoods.
If we take all trips since Citi Bike’s expansion in August 2015, and again assume everyone followed Google Maps cycling directions, we can see which road segments throughout the city are most traveled by Citi Bikes. Here’s a map showing the most popular roads, where the thickness and brightness of the lines are based on the number of Citi Bikes that traveled that segment (click here to view higher resolution):
This map is reminiscent of the maps of taxi pickups and drop offs from my previous post, but they’re actually a bit different. The taxi maps were made of individual dots, where each dot was a pickup or drop off, while the Citi Bike map above counts each trip as a series of line segments, from the trip’s starting point to its finish.
The map shows a handful of primary routes for cyclists: 8th and 9th avenues heading uptown and downtown, respectively, on the west side, and 1st and 2nd avenues heading uptown and downtown, respectively, on the east side. The single road segment most trafficked by Citi Bikes lies along 8th Avenue, from W 28th Street to W 29th Street. Other main bike routes include Broadway, cutting diagonally across Midtown Manhattan, and the west side bike path along the Hudson River.
Remember that the map and animation assume people follow Google Maps cycling directions, which is definitely not always true. Google Maps seems to express strong preference for roads that have protected bike paths, which is why, for example, 8th Avenue has lots of traffic heading uptown, but 6th Avenue has very little. Both avenues head northbound, but only 8th Avenue has a protected bike path.
Unlike taxis, Citi Bikes cannot pick up and drop off at any arbitrary point in the city. Instead, riders can pick up and drop off bikes at finite number of stations across the city. Citi Bikes haven’t reached the ubiquity of taxis—in 2015 there were likely about 175 million taxi trips, 35 million Uber trips, and 10 million Citi Bike rides—but the bike share has plans to continue its expansion in the coming years.
Citi Bike makes data available for every individual trip in the system. Each trip record includes:
Here’s a graph of monthly usage since the program’s inception in June 2013:
Not surprisingly, there are dramatically fewer Citi Bike rides during the cold winter months. We’ll attempt to quantify the weather’s impact on Citi Bike ridership later in this post. The August 2015 increase in rides corresponds to the system’s first major expansion, which added nearly 2,000 bikes and 150 stations across Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan.
The system gets more usage on weekdays than on weekends, and if we look at trips by hour of the day, we can see that weekday riders primarily use Citi Bikes to commute to and from work, with peak hours from 8–9 AM and 5–7 PM. Weekend riders, on the other hand, prefer a more leisurely schedule, with most weekend rides occurring in the mid afternoon hours:
The age and gender demographic data can be combined with Google Maps cycling directions to address a host of interesting questions, including:
For each trip, we’ll proxy the trip’s average speed by taking the distance traveled according to Google Maps, and dividing by the amount of time the trip took. This probably understates the rider’s actual average bike speed, since the trip includes time spent unlocking the bike from the origin station, adjusting it, perhaps checking a phone for directions or dealing with other distractions, and returning the bike at the destination station.
Additionally, it assumes the rider follows Google Maps directions. If the rider actually took a longer route than the one suggested by Google, that would be more distance traveled, and we would underestimate the average trip speed. On the other hand, if the rider took a more direct route than suggested by Google, it’s possible we might overestimate the trip speed.
We have no idea about any individual rider’s intent: some riders are probably trying to get from point A to point B as quickly as safely possible, while others might want to take a scenic route which happens to start at point A and end at point B. The latter group will almost certainly not follow a direct route, and so we’ll end up calculating a very slow average speed for these trips, even if the riders were pedaling hard the entire time.
Accordingly, for an analysis of bike speed, I restricted to the following subset of trips, which I at least weakly claim is more likely to include riders who are trying to get from point A to point B quickly:
I then bucketed into cohorts defined by age, gender, and distance traveled, and calculated average trip speeds:
The average speed across all such trips is 8.3 miles per hour, and the graph makes clear that younger riders tend to travel faster than older riders, men tend to travel faster than women, and trips covering longer distances have higher average speeds than shorter distance trips.
It’s also interesting to compare actual trip times to estimated times from Google Maps. Google Maps knows, for example, that the average speed along a wide, protected bike path will be faster than the speed along a narrow cross street that has no dedicated bike lane. I took the same cohorts and calculated the average difference between actual travel time and Google Maps estimated travel time:
If everyone took exactly the amount of time estimated by Google Maps cycling directions, we’d see a series of flat lines at 0. However, every bucket has a positive difference, meaning that actual trip times are slower than predicted by Google Maps, by an average of 92 seconds. As mentioned earlier, part of that is because Google Maps estimates don’t account for time spent transacting at Citi Bike stations, and we can’t guarantee that every rider in our dataset was even trying to get from point A to B quickly.
I ran a linear regression in R to model the difference between actual and estimated travel time as a function of gender, age, and distance traveled. The point of the regression isn’t so much to make any accurate predictions—it’d be especially bad to extrapolate the regression for longer distance trips—but more to understand the relative magnitude of each variable’s impact:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

The regression’s low R^2 of 0.055 reiterates that the data has lots of variance, and for any given trip the model is unlikely to produce a particularly accurate estimate. But the model at least gives us a simple formula to make a crude estimate of how long a Citi Bike subscriber’s rush hour trip will take relative to the Google Maps estimate:
The result is the average number of seconds between actual and Google Maps estimated trip times, with a positive number indicating a slower than estimated trip, and a negative number indicating a faster than estimated trip. Yes, it means that for every year you get older, you’re liable to be 2.2 seconds slower on your regular Citi Bike commute route!
In my post about taxi data, I included a section about data privacy, noting that precise pick up and drop off coordinates might reveal potentially sensitive information about where people live, work, and socialize. Citi Bike data does not have the same issues with precise coordinates, since all Citi Bike trips have to start and end at one of the 493 fixed stations.
But unlike the taxi data, Citi Bike includes demographic information about its riders, namely gender, birth year, and subscriber status. At first glance that might not seem too revealing, but it turns out that it’s enough to uniquely identify many Citi Bike trips. If you know the following information about an individual Citi Bike trip:
Then you can uniquely identify that individual trip 84% of the time! That means you can find out where and when the rider dropped off the bike, which might be sensitive information. Because men account for 77% of all subscriber trips, it’s even easier to uniquely identify rides by women: if we restrict to female riders, then 92% of trips can be uniquely identified. It’s also easier to identify riders who are significantly younger or older than average:
If instead of knowing the trip’s starting time to the nearest hour you only knew it to the nearest day, then you’d be able to identify 28% of all trips, but still 49% of trips by women.
On some level this shouldn’t be too surprising: a famous paper by Latanya Sweeney showed that 87% of the U.S. population is uniquely identified by birthdate, gender, and ZIP code. We probably have a bias toward underestimating how easy it is to identify people from what seems like limited data, and I hope that people think about that when they decide what data should be made publicly available.
Disclaimer: I know nothing about the logistics of running a bike share system. I’d imagine, though, that one of the big issues is making sure that there are bikes available at stations where people want to pick them up. If station A starts the day with lots of bikes, but people take them out to other stations and nobody returns any bikes to A, then A will run out of bikes, and that’s bad.
The bike share operator could transport additional bikes to A to meet demand, but that costs time/money, so the operator probably wants to avoid it as much as possible. The data lets us measure how often bikes “magically” transport from one station to another, even though no one took a ride. I took each bike drop off, and calculated the percentage of rides where the bike’s next trip started at a different station from where the previous trip dropped off:
From July 2013 through March 2015, around 13% of bikes were somehow transported from their drop off stations to different stations before being ridden again. Since April 2015, though, that rate has decreased to about 4%. I have no idea why: my first guess was that there were more total bikes added to the system, but the number of bikes in use did not change in March 2015. There were no stations added or removed around then either, so that seems like an unlikely explanation. Maybe the operator developed a smarter system to allocate bikes, which resulted in a lower transfer percentage?
Different neighborhoods have different transfer patterns, too. Bikes dropped off in Manhattan’s East Village have a much higher chance of being transported if they’re dropped off in the evening:
While transfers are more likely in Fort Greene, Brooklyn for bikes dropped off in the morning:
And in Midtown, Manhattan, drop offs at morning or evening rush hour are more likely to be transported:
Add it all up and I’m not exactly sure what it means, but it seems like something that could be pursued further. The Citi Bike program has plans to continue its expansion in 2016, I wonder how the new stations will impact the transport rate?
We saw earlier that there are many more Citi Bike rides in the summer than in the winter. It’s not surprising: anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that it’s not very pleasant to bike when it’s freezing cold. Similarly, biking is probably less popular on rainy and snowy days. This got me wondering: how well is Citi Bike’s daily ridership predicted by the weather?
I downloaded daily Central Park weather data from the National Climatic Data Center and joined it to the Citi Bike data in an effort to model the relationship between Citi Bike usage and the weather. The weather data includes a few variables, most notably:
Even before I began investigating the data, I suspected that a linear regression would not be appropriate for the weather model, for two main reasons:
We could use a linear model with log transformations to deal with problem 1, but even then we’d be stuck with the nonlinearity issue. Let’s confirm though that the relationship between weather and ridership is in fact nonlinear:
This graph makes it pretty clear that there’s a nonlinear relationship between rides and max daily temperature. The number of trips ramps up quickly between 30 and 60 degrees, but above 60 degrees or so there’s a much weaker relationship between ridership and temperature. Let’s look at rainy days:
And snowy days:
Rain and snow are, not surprisingly, both correlated with lower ridership. The linearity of the relationships is less clear—there are also fewer observations in the dataset compared to “normal” days—but intuitively I have to believe that there’s a diminishing marginal effect of both, i.e. the difference between no rain and 0.1 inches of rain is more significant than the difference between 0.5 and 0.6 inches.
To calibrate the model, instead of using R’s lm()
function, we’ll use the nlsLM()
function from the minpack.lm package, which implements the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm to minimize squared error for a nonlinear model.
For the nonlinear regression, we first need to specify the form of the model, which I chose to look like this:
The d variables are known values for a given date d, β variables are calibrated parameters, and the capitalized functions are intermediaries that are strictly speaking unnecessary, i.e. we could write the whole model on a single line, but I find the intermediate functions make things easier to reason about. Let’s step through the model specification, one line at a time:
d_{trips} is the number of Citi Bike trips on date d, the dependent variable in our model. We’re breaking trips into two components: a baseline component, which is a function of the date, and a weather component, which is a function of the weather on that date.
The Baseline(d) function uses an exponent, which guarantees that it will produce a positive output. It has 3 calibrated parameters: a constant, an adjustment for days that are nonholiday weekdays, and a fudge factor for dates in the “postexpansion era”, defined as after August 25, 2015, when Citi Bike added nearly 150 stations to the system.
The Weather(d) function uses every mortgage prepayment modeler’s favorite formula: the scurve. I readily admit I have no “deep” reason for picking this functional form, but scurves often behave well in nonlinear models, and the earlier temperature graph kind of looked like an scurve might fit it well.
The input to the scurve, WeatherFactor(d), is a linear combination of the maximum temperature, precipitation, and snow depth on date d.
The input data is available here as a csv, and you can see the exact R commands, output, and parameter values here, but the short version is that the model calibrates to what seem like reasonable parameters. Assuming we hold all other variables constant, the model predicts:
In order to assess the model’s goodness of fit, we’ll look at some more graphs, starting with a scatterplot of actual vs. predicted values. Each dot represents a single day in the dataset, where the xaxis is the actual number of trips on that day, and the yaxis is the modelpredicted number of trips:
The model’s rootmeansquare error is 4,138, and residuals appear to be at least roughly normally distributed. Residuals appear to exhibit some heteroscedasticity, though, as the residuals have lower variance on dates with fewer trips.
The effect of the “postexpansion” fudge factor is evident in the topright corner of the scatterplot, where it looks like there’s an asymptote around 36,000 predicted trips for dates before August 26, 2015. Ideally we’d formulate the model to avoid using a fudge factor—maybe by modeling trips at the individual station level, then aggregating up—but we’ll conveniently gloss over that.
We can also look at the time series of actual vs. predicted, aggregating to monthly totals in order to reduce noise:
I make no claim that it’s a perfect model—it uses imperfect data, has some smelly features and omissions, and all of the usual correlation/causation caveats apply—but it seems to do at least an okay job quantifying the impact of temperature, rain, and snow on Citi Bike ridership.
As always, there are still plenty more things we could study in the dataset. Bad weather probably affects cycling speeds, so we could take that into account when measuring speeds and Google Maps time estimates.
Ben Wellington at I Quant NY did some demographic analysis by station, it might be interesting to see how that has evolved over time.
I wonder about modeling ridership at the individual station level, especially as stations are added in the future. Adding a new station is liable to affect ridership at existing stations—and it’s not even clear whether positively or negatively. A new station might cannibalize trips from other nearby stations, which wouldn’t increase total ridership by very much. But it’s also possible that a new station could have a synergistic effect with an existing station: imagine a scenario where a neighborhood with bad subway access gets a Citi Bike station, then an existing station located near the closest subway might see a surge in usage.
There are also probably plenty of analyses that could be done comparing Citi Bike data with the taxi and Uber data: what neighborhoods have the highest and lowest ratios of Citi Bike rides compared to taxi trips? And are there any commutes where it’s faster to take a Citi Bike than a taxi during rush hour traffic? Alas, these will have to wait for another time…
There are scripts to download, process, and analyze the data in the nyccitibikedata repository. A csv of the raw data for the weather analysis (daily trip totals plus weather data) is included in the repo, in case you don’t want to download all of the data.
]]>I mapped the coordinates of every trip to local census tracts and neighborhoods, then set about in an attempt to extract stories and meaning from the data. This post covers a lot, but for those who want to pursue more analysis on their own: everything in this post—the data, software, and code—is freely available. Full instructions to download and analyze the data for yourself are available on GitHub.
I’m certainly not the first person to use the public taxi data to make maps, but I hadn’t previously seen a map that includes the entire dataset of pickups and drop offs since 2009 for both yellow and green taxis. You can click the maps to view high resolution versions:
These maps show every taxi pickup and drop off, respectively, in New York City from 2009–2015. The maps are made up of tiny dots, where brighter regions indicate more taxi activity. The green tinted regions represent activity by green boro taxis, which can only pick up passengers in upper Manhattan and the outer boroughs. Notice how pickups are more heavily concentrated in Manhattan, while drop offs extend further into the outer boroughs.
If you think these are pretty, I recommend checking out the high resolution images of pickups and drop offs.
The official TLC trip record dataset contains data for over 1.1 billion taxi trips from January 2009 through June 2015, covering both yellow and green taxis. Each individual trip record contains precise location coordinates for where the trip started and ended, timestamps for when the trip started and ended, plus a few other variables including fare amount, payment method, and distance traveled.
I used PostgreSQL to store the data and PostGIS to perform geographic calculations, including the heavy lifting of mapping latitude/longitude coordinates to NYC census tracts and neighborhoods. The full dataset takes up 267 GB on disk, before adding any indexes. For more detailed information on the database schema and geographic calculations, take a look at the GitHub repository.
Thanks to the folks at FiveThirtyEight, there is also some publicly available data covering nearly 19 million Uber rides in NYC from April–September 2014 and January–June 2015, which I’ve incorporated into the dataset. The Uber data is not as detailed as the taxi data, in particular Uber provides time and location for pickups only, not drop offs, but I wanted to provide a unified dataset including all available taxi and Uber data. Each trip in the dataset has a cab_type_id
, which indicates whether the trip was in a yellow taxi, green taxi, or Uber car.
The introduction of the green boro taxi program in August 2013 dramatically increased the amount of taxi activity in the outer boroughs. Here’s a graph of taxi pickups in Brooklyn, the most populous borough, split by cab type:
From 2009–2013, a period during which migration from Manhattan to Brooklyn generally increased, yellow taxis nearly doubled the number of pickups they made in Brooklyn.
Once boro taxis appeared on the scene, though, the green taxis quickly overtook yellow taxis so that as of June 2015, green taxis accounted for 70% of Brooklyn’s 850,000 monthly taxi pickups, while yellow taxis have decreased Brooklyn pickups back to their 2009 rate. Yellow taxis still account for more drop offs in Brooklyn, since many people continue to take taxis from Manhattan to Brooklyn, but even in drop offs, the green taxis are closing the gap.
Let’s add Uber into the mix. I live in Brooklyn, and although I sometimes take taxis, an anecdotal review of my credit card statements suggests that I take about four times as many Ubers as I do taxis. It turns out I’m not alone: between June 2014 and June 2015, the number of Uber pickups in Brooklyn grew by 525%! As of June 2015, the most recent data available when I wrote this, Uber accounts for more than twice as many pickups in Brooklyn compared to yellow taxis, and is rapidly approaching the popularity of green taxis:
Manhattan, not surprisingly, accounts for by far the largest number of taxi pickups of any borough. In any given month, around 85% of all NYC taxi pickups occur in Manhattan, and most of those are made by yellow taxis. Even though green taxis are allowed to operate in upper Manhattan, they account for barely a fraction of yellow taxi activity:
Uber has grown dramatically in Manhattan as well, notching a 275% increase in pickups from June 2014 to June 2015, while taxi pickups declined by 9% over the same period. Uber made 1.4 million more Manhattan pickups in June 2015 than it did in June 2014, while taxis made 1.1 million fewer pickups. However, even though Uber picked up nearly 2 million Manhattan passengers in June 2015, Uber still accounts for less than 15% of total Manhattan pickups:
Queens still has more yellow taxi pickups than green taxi pickups, but that’s entirely because LaGuardia and JFK airports are both in Queens, and they are heavily served by yellow taxis. And although Uber has experienced nearly Brooklynlike growth in Queens, it still lags behind yellow and green taxis, though again the yellow taxis are heavily influenced by airport pickups:
If we restrict to pickups at LaGuardia and JFK Airports, we can see that Uber has grown to over 100,000 monthly pickups, but yellow cabs still shuttle over 80% of carhailing airport passengers back into the city:
The Bronx and Staten Island have significantly lower taxi volume, but you can see graphs for both on GitHub. The most noteworthy observations are that almost no yellow taxis venture to the Bronx, and Uber is already more popular than taxis on Staten Island.
Most of these vehicles [heading to JFK Airport] would undoubtedly be using the Van Wyck Expressway; Moses’s stated purpose in proposing it was to provide a direct route to the airport from midManhattan. But the Van Wyck Expressway was designed to carry—under “optimum” conditions (good weather, no accidents or other delays)—2,630 vehicles per hour. Even if the only traffic using the Van Wyck was JFK traffic, the expressway’s capacity would not be sufficient to handle it.
[…] The air age was just beginning: air traffic was obviously going to boom to immense dimensions. If the Van Wyck expressway could not come anywhere near handling JFK’s traffic when that traffic was 10,000 persons per hour, what was going to happen when that traffic increased to 15,000 persons per hour? To 20,000?
—Robert Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (1974)
A subject near and dear to all New Yorkers’ hearts: how far in advance do you have to hail a cab in order to make your flight at one of the three area airports? Of course, this depends on many factors: is there bad rush hour traffic? Is the UN in session? Will your cab driver know a “secret” shortcut to avoid the day’s inevitable bottleneck on the Van Wyck?
I took all weekday taxi trips to the airports and calculated the distribution of how long it took to travel from each neighborhood to the airports at each hour of the day. In most cases, the worst hour to travel to an airport is 4–5 PM. For example, the median taxi trip leaving Midtown headed for JFK Airport between 4 and 5 PM takes 64 minutes! 10% of trips during that hour take over 84 minutes—good luck making your flight in that case.
If you left Midtown heading for JFK between 10 and 11 AM, you’d face a median trip time of 38 minutes, with a 90% chance of getting there in less than 50 minutes. Google Maps estimates about an hour travel time on public transit from Bryant Park to JFK, so depending on the time of day and how close you are to a subway stop, your expected travel time might be better on public transit than in a cab, and you could save a bunch of money.
The stories are similar for traveling to LaGuardia and Newark airports, and from other neighborhoods. You can see the graphs for airport travel times from any neighborhood by selecting it in the dropdown below:
You can view airport graphs for other neighborhoods by selecting a neighborhood from the dropdown above.
Airports aren’t the only destinations that suffer from traffic congestion. In Die Hard: With a Vengeance, John McClane (Willis) and Zeus Carver (Jackson) have to make it from 72nd and Broadway to the Wall Street 2/3 subway station during morning rush hour in less than 30 minutes, or else a bomb will go off. They commandeer a taxi, drive it frantically through Central Park, tailgate an ambulance, and just barely make it in time (of course the bomb goes off anyway…). Thanks to the TLC’s publicly available data, we can finally address audience concerns about the realism of this sequence.
McClane and Carver leave the Upper West Side at 9:50 AM, so I took all taxi rides that:
And made a histogram of travel times:
There are 580 such taxi trips in the dataset, with a mean travel time of 29.8 minutes, and a median of 29 minutes. That means that half of such trips actually made it within the allotted time of 30 minutes! Now, our heroes might need a few minutes to commandeer a cab and get down to the subway platform on foot, so if we allot 3 minutes for those tasks and 27 minutes for driving, then only 39% of trips make it in 27 minutes or less. Still, in the movie they make it seem like a herculean task with almost zero probability of success, when in reality it’s just about average. This seems to be the rare action movie sequence which is actually easier to recreate in real life than in the movies!
Since 2009, the days with the fewest citywide taxi trips all have obvious relationships to the weather. The days with the fewest taxi trips were:
I downloaded daily Central Park weather data from the National Climatic Data Center, and joined it to the taxi data to see if we could learn anything else about the relationship between weather and taxi rides. There are lots of confounding variables, including seasonal trends, annual growth due to boro taxis, and whether weather events happen to fall on weekdays or weekends, but it would appear that snowfall has a significant negative impact on daily taxi ridership:
On the other hand, rain alone does not seem to affect total daily ridership:
Since Uber trip data is only available for a handful of months, it’s more difficult to measure the impact of weather on Uber ridership. Uber is wellknown for its surge pricing during times of high demand, which often includes inclement weather. There were a handful of rainy and snowy days in the first half of 2015 when Uber data is available, so for each rain/snow day, I calculated the total number of trips made by taxis and Ubers, and compared that to each service’s daily average over the previous week. For example, Uber’s ratio of 69% on 1/26/15 means that there were 69% as many Uber trips made that day compared to Uber’s daily average from 1/19–1/25:
Date  Snowfall in inches  Taxi trips vs. prev week  Uber trips vs. prev week 

1/26/15  5.5  55%  69% 
1/27/15  4.3  33%  41% 
2/2/15  5.0  91%  107% 
3/1/15  4.8  85%  88% 
3/5/15  7.5  83%  100% 
3/20/15  4.5  105%  134% 
Date  Precipitation in inches  Taxi trips vs. prev week  Uber trips vs. prev week 

1/18/15  2.1  98%  112% 
3/14/15  0.8  114%  130% 
4/20/15  1.4  90%  105% 
5/31/15  1.5  96%  116% 
6/1/15  0.7  99%  106% 
6/21/15  0.6  92%  94% 
6/27/15  1.1  114%  147% 
Although this data does not conclusively prove anything, on every single inclement weather day in 2015, in both rain and snow, Uber provided more trips relative to its previous week’s average than taxis did. Part of this is probably because the number of Uber cars is still growing, so all things held constant, we’d expect Uber to provide more trips on each successive day, while total taxi trips stay flat. But for Uber’s ratio to be higher every single day seems unlikely to be random chance, though again I have no justification to make any strong claims. Whether it’s surge pricing or something else, Uber’s capacity seems less negatively impacted by bad weather relative to taxi capacity.
Many real estate listings these days include information about the neighborhood: rankings of local schools, walkability scores, and types of local businesses. We can use the taxi data to draw some inferences about what parts of the city are popular for going out late at night by looking at the percentage of each census tract’s taxi pickups that occur between 10 PM and 5 AM—the time period I’ve deemed “late night.”
Some people want to live in a city that never sleeps, while others prefer their peace and quiet. According to the late night taxi index, if you’re looking for a neighborhood with vibrant nightlife, try Williamsburg, Greenpoint, or Bushwick in Brooklyn. The census tract with the highest late night taxi index is in East Williamsburg, where 76% of taxi pickups occur between 10 PM and 5 AM. If you insist on Manhattan, then your best bets are the Lower East Side or the Meatpacking District.
Conversely, if you want to avoid the nighttime commotion, head uptown to the Upper East or Upper West Side (if you’re not already there…). The stretch in the east 80s between 5th Avenue and Park Avenue has the lowest late night taxi index, with only 5% of all taxi pickups occurring during the nighttime hours.
Here’s a map of all census tracts that had at least 50,000 taxi pickups, where darker shading represents a higher score on the late night taxi index:
The “bridge and tunnel” moniker applies, on a literal level, to anyone who travels onto the island of Manhattan via a bridge or tunnel, most often from New Jersey, Long Island, or the outer boroughs. Typically it’s considered an insult, though, with the emerging popularity of the outer boroughs, well, let’s just say the Times is on it.
In order to measure B&T destinations from the taxi data, I isolated all trips originating near Penn Station on Saturday evenings between 6 PM and midnight. Penn Station serves as the point of disembarkation for New Jersey Transit and Long Island Rail Road, so although not everyone hailing a taxi around Penn Station on a Saturday evening just took the train into the city, it should be at least a decent proxy for B&T trends. Here’s the map of the neighborhoods where these rides dropped off:
The most popular destinations for B&T trips are in Murray Hill, the Meatpacking District, Chelsea, and Midtown. We can even drill down to the individual trip level to see exactly where these trips wind up. Here’s a map of Murray Hill, the most popular B&T destination, where each dot represents a single Saturday evening taxi trip originating at Penn Station:
As reported, repeatedly, in the NYT, the heart of Murray Hill nightlife lies along 3rd Avenue, in particular the stretch from 32nd to 35th streets. Taxi data shows the plurality of Saturday evening taxi trips from Penn Station drop off in this area, with additional clusters in the high 20s on 3rd Avenue, further east along 34th Street, and a spot on East 39th Street between 1st and 2nd avenues. With a bit more work we might be able to reverse geocode these coordinates to actual bar names, perhaps putting a more scientific spin on this classic of the genre from Complex.
According to taxi activity, the most ascendant census tract in the entire city since 2009 lies on Williamsburg’s north side, bounded by North 14th St to the north, Berry St to the east, North 7th St to the south, and the East River to the west:
The Northside neighborhood is known for its nightlife: a full 72% of pickups occur during the late night hours. It’s difficult to compare 2009–2015 taxi growth across census tracts and boroughs because of the introduction of the green boro taxi program, but the Northside tract had a larger increase in total taxi pickups over that time period than any other tract in the city, with the exception of the airports:
Even before the boro taxi program began in August 2013, Northside Williamsburg experienced a dramatic increase in taxi activity, growing from a mere 500 monthly pickups in June 2009, to 10,000 in June 2013, and 25,000 by June 2015. Let’s look at an animated map of taxi pickups to see if we can learn anything:
The cool thing about the animation is that it lets us pinpoint the exact locations of some of the more popular Northside businesses to open in the past few years, in particular along Wythe Avenue:
Meanwhile, I’m sure the developers of the future William Vale and Hoxton hotels hope that the Northside’s inexorable rise continues, but at least according to taxi data, pickups have remained stable since mid2014, perhaps indicating that the neighborhood’s popularity has plateaued?
The first time the TLC released public taxi data in 2013, following a FOIL request by Chris Whong, it included supposedly anonymized taxi medallion numbers for every trip. In fact it was possible to decode each trip’s actual medallion number, as described by Vijay Pandurangan. This led to many discussions about data privacy, and the TLC removed all information about medallion numbers from the more recent data releases.
But the data still contains precise latitude and longitude coordinates, which can potentially be used to determine where people live, work, socialize, and so on. This is all fun and games when we’re looking at the hottest new techno club in Northside Williamsburg, but when it’s people’s homes it gets a bit weird. NYC is of course very dense, and if you take a rush hour taxi ride from one populus area to another, say Grand Central Terminal to the Upper East Side, it’s unlikely that there’s anything unique about your trip that would let someone figure out where you live or work.
But what if you’re going somewhere a bit off the beaten path for taxis? In that case, your trip might well be unique, and it might reveal information about you. For example, I don’t know who owns one of theses beautiful oceanfront homes on East Hampton’s exclusive Further Lane (exact address redacted to protect the innocent):
But I do know the exact Brooklyn Heights location and time from which someone (not necessarily the owner) hailed a cab, rode 106.6 miles, and paid a $400 fare with a credit card, including a $110.50 tip. If the TLC truly wanted to remove potentially personal information, they would have to remove latitude and longitude coordinates from the dataset entirely. There’s a tension that public data is supposed to let people know how well the taxi system serves different parts of the city, so maybe the TLC should provide census tracts instead of coordinates, or perhaps only coordinates within busy parts of Manhattan, but providing coordinates that uniquely identify a rider’s home feels excessive.
While we’re on the topic of the Hamptons: we’ve already covered the hipsters of Williamsburg and the B&Ts of Murray Hill, why not see what the taxi data can tell us about investment bankers, yet another of New York’s distinctive subcultures?
Goldman Sachs lends itself nicely to analysis because its headquarters at 200 West Street has a dedicated driveway, marked “Hudson River Greenway” on this Google Map:
We can isolate all taxi trips that dropped off in that driveway to get a sense of where Goldman Sachs employees—at least the ones who take taxis—come from in the mornings, and when they arrive. Here’s a histogram of weekday drop off times at 200 West Street:
The cabs start dropping off around 5 AM, then peak hours are 7–9 AM, before tapering off in the afternoon. Presumably most of the postmorning drop offs are visitors as opposed to employees. If we restrict to drop offs before 10 AM, the median drop off time is 7:59 AM, and 25% of drop offs happen before 7:08 AM.
A few blocks to the north is Citigroup’s headquarters at 388 Greenwich St, and although the building doesn’t appear to have a dedicated driveway the way Goldman does, we can still isolate taxis that drop off directly in front of the building to see what time Citigroup’s workers arrive in the morning:
Some of the evening drop offs near Citigroup are probably for the bars and restaurants across the street, but again the morning drop offs are probably mostly Citigroup employees. Citigroup’s morning arrival stats are comparable to Goldman’s: a median arrival of 7:51 AM, and 25% of drop offs happen before 7:03 AM.
The top neighborhoods for taxi pickups that drop off at Goldman Sachs or Citigroup on weekday mornings are:
So what’s the deal, do bankers not live above 14th St (or maybe 23rd St) anymore? Alas, there are still plenty of trips from the stodgier parts further uptown, and it’s certainly possible that people coming from uptown are more likely to take the subway, private cars, or other modes of transport, so the taxi data is by no means conclusive. But still, the cool kids have been living downtown for a while now, why should the bankers be any exception?
As I mentioned in the introduction, this post covers a lot. And even then, I feel like it barely scratches the surface of the information available in the full dataset. For example, did you know that in January 2009, just over 20% of taxi fares were paid with a credit card, but as of June 2015, that number has grown to over 60% of all fares?
And for more expensive taxi trips, riders now pay via credit card more than 75% of the time:
There are endless analyses to be done, and more datasets that could be merged with the taxi data for further investigation. The Citi Bike program releases public ride data; I wonder if the introduction of a bikeshare system had a material impact on taxi ridership? [Update: I did some analysis of the Citi Bike system] And maybe we could quantify fairweather fandom by measuring how taxi volume to Yankee Stadium and Citi Field fluctuates based on the Yankees’ and Mets’ records?
There are investors out there who use satellite imagery to make investment decisions, e.g. if there are lots of cars in a department store’s parking lots this holiday season, maybe it’s time to buy. You might be able to do something similar with the taxi data: is airline market share shifting, based on traffic through JetBlue’s terminal at JFK vs. Delta’s terminal at LaGuardia? Is demand for lumber at all correlated to how many people are loading up on IKEA furniture in Red Hook?
I’d imagine that people will continue to obtain Uber data via FOIL requests, so it will be interesting to see how that unfolds amidst increased tension with city government and constant media speculation about a possible IPO.
Lastly, I mentioned the “medium data revolution” in my previous post about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the same ethos applies here. Not too long ago, the idea of downloading, processing, and analyzing 267 GB of raw data containing 1.1 billion rows on a commodity laptop would have been almost laughably naive. Today, not only is it possible on a MacBook Air, but there are increasingly more opensource software tools available to aid in the process. I’m partial to PostgreSQL and R, but those are implementation details: increasingly, the limiting factor of data analysis is not computational horsepower, but human curiosity and creativity.
If you’re interested in getting the data and doing your own analysis, or just want to read a bit about the more technical details, head over to the GitHub repository.
The NYC Taxi & Limousine Commission has released an additional year of data, covering taxis, Uber, and other forhire vehicle (FHV) trips through June 2016. The complete dataset now includes over 1.3 billion trips, and the GitHub repo has been updated to process everything, including the new FHV file formats.
October 12, 2015 marked the first day that Uber made more pickups in Brooklyn than yellow and green taxis combined. As of June 2016, Uber makes 60% more pickups per day than taxis do, and the gap appears to be growing. Lyft has also surpassed yellow taxis in Brooklyn, but still makes fewer pickups than green boro taxis.
In Manhattan, taxis still make more than three times as many pickups per day than Ubers do. But taxi activity shrank by 10% from June 2015 to June 2016, while Uber grew by 63% over the same time period. That’s a 1.1 million trips per month loss for taxis, coupled with a 1.2 million trips per month increase for Uber.
Uber has also increased its share of pickups at LaGuardia and JFK airports. Uber’s airport pickups doubled in the past year while taxi activity remained flat, and Uber now makes 40% as many pickups at NYC airports compared to taxis.
Uber’s growth rate in NYC is slowing, which is not terriby surprising since intuitively it should be harder for a company to grow as it serves a larger percentage of the population. That said, Uber’s NYC yearoveryear growth was still +90% as of June 2016, down from +325% one year earlier.
Taxi losses accelerated slightly over the same time period: yearoveryear pickups declined 10% as of June 2016, compared to a loss of 7% the year before.
If taxi trips average an 8% annual decline over the next two years, then Uber would have to average a 40% annual growth rate in order to equal taxi activity by June 2018.
If we consider ridesharing services as a group—specifically Uber, Lyft, Via, Juno, and Gett—then that aggregate cohort would have to average a 22% annual growth rate over the next two years, again assuming 8% annual taxi decline (note that Via, Juno, and Gett do not yet appear in the triplevel TLC data, but they do report aggregate trip counts).
There are enough unknowns—in particular, I wonder if ridesharing fares are unsustainably low due to intense competition—that it’s impossible to say if or when the lines will cross, but at least for now, the overall trend is unmistakable.
You can continue to see monthly liveupdating TLC aggregate data here, and the opensource code to process and analyze everything is here.
]]>With that in mind, I took the betting odds for the 2016 US presidential election from Betfair and used them to calculate the perceived electability of each candidate. Electability is defined as a candidate’s conditional probability of winning the presidency, given that the candidate earns his or her party’s nomination.
Enable javascript or click through to see uptodate data
Candidate  Win Nomination  Win Presidency  Electability if Nominated 

Note: the following section was written September 15, 2015. Things have changed since then, invalidating some of what’s written below
I’m no political analyst, and the data above will continue to update throughout the election season, making anything I write here about it potentially immediately outdated, but according to the data at the time I wrote this on September 15, 2015, betting markets perceive Hillary Clinton as the most electable of the declared candidates, with a 57%–58% chance of winning the presidency if she receives the Democratic nomination. Betting markets also imply that the Democrats are the favorites overall, with about a 57% chance of winning the presidency, which is roughly the same as Clinton’s electability, so it appears that Clinton is considered averagely electable compared to the Democratic party as a whole.
On the Republican side, Jeb Bush has the best odds of winning the nomination, but his electability range of 47%–49% means he’s considered a slight underdog in the general election should he win the nomination. Still, that’s better than Marco Rubio (36%–40%) and Scott Walker (33%–42%), who each have lower electabilities, implying that they would be bigger underdogs if they were nominated. The big surprise to me is that Donald Trump has a fairly high electability range relative to the other Republicans, at 47%–56%. Maybe the implication is something like, “if there’s an unanticipated factor that enables the surprising result of Trump winning the nomination, then that same factor will work in his favor in the general election,” but then that logic should apply to other longshot candidates, which it seems not to, so perhaps other caveats apply.
Usually when you read something in the news like “according to [bookmaker], candidate A has a 25% chance of winning the primary”, that’s not quite the complete story. The bookmaker might well have posted odds on A to win the primary at 3:1, which means you could bet $1 on A to win the primary, and if you’re correct then you’ll collect $4 from the bookmaker for a profit of $3. Such a bet has positive expected value if and only if you believe the candidate’s probability of winning the primary is greater than 25%. But traditional bookmakers typically don’t let you take the other side of their posted odds. In other words, you probably couldn’t bet $3 on A to lose the nomination, and receive a $1 profit if you’re correct.
Betting markets like Betfair, though, do allow you to bet in either direction, but not at the same odds. Maybe you can bet on candidate A to win the nomination at a 25% riskneutral probability, but if you want to bet on A to lose the nomination, you might only be able to do so at a 20% riskneutral probability, which means you could risk $4 for a potential $1 profit if A loses the nomination, or 1:4 odds. The difference between where you can buy and sell is known as the bidoffer spread, and it reflects, among other things, compensation for marketmakers.
The probabilities in the earlier table are given as ranges because they reflect this bidoffer spread. If candidate A’s bidoffer is 20%–25%, and you think that A’s true probability is 30%, then betting on A at 25% seems like an attractive option, or if you think that A’s true probability is 15% then betting against A at 20% is also attractive. But if you think A’s true probability falls between 20% and 25%, then you probably don’t have any bets to make, though you might consider becoming a marketmaker yourself by placing a bid or offer at an intermediate level and waiting for someone else to come along and take the opposite position.
Betfair offers betting markets on the outcome of the general election, and the outcomes of the Democratic and Republican primary elections. Although Betfair does not offer betting markets of the form “candidate A to win the presidency, if and only if A wins the primary”, bettors can place simultaneous bets on A’s primary and general election outcomes in a ratio such that the bettor will break even if A loses the primary, and make or lose money only in the scenario where A wins the primary.
Let’s continue the example with our hypothetical candidate A, who has a bidoffer 20%–25% in the primary, and let’s say a bidoffer 11%–12.5% in the general election. If we bet $25 on A to win the general election at a 12.5% probability, then our profit across scenarios looks like this:
Bet $25 on candidate A to win the general election at 12.5% probability (7:1 odds)
Scenario  Amount at Risk  Payout from general bet  Profit 

A loses primary  $25  $0  $25 
A wins primary, loses general  $25  $0  $25 
A wins primary, wins general  $25  $200  $175 
We want our profit to be $0 in the “loses primary” scenario, so we can add a hedging bet that will pay us a profit of $25 if A loses the primary. That bet is placed at a 20% probability, which means our odds ratio is 1:4, so we have to risk $100 in order to profit $25 in case A loses the primary. Now we have a total of $125 at risk: $25 on A to win the presidency, and $100 on A to lose the nomination. The scenarios look like this:
Bet $25 on candidate A to win the general election at 12.5% probability (7:1 odds) and $100 on A to lose the primary at 20% probability (1:4 odds)
Scenario  Amount at risk  Payout from primary bet  Payout from general bet  Profit 

A loses primary  $125  $125  $0  $0 
A wins primary, loses general  $125  $0  $0  $125 
A wins primary, wins general  $125  $0  $200  $75 
We’ve constructed our bets so that if A loses the primary, then we neither make nor lose money, but if A wins the primary, then we need A’s probability of winning the election to be greater than 62.5% in order to make our bet positive expected value, since 0.625 * 75 + 0.375 * 125 = 0. As an exercise for the reader, you can go through similar logic to show that if you want to bet on A to lose the presidential election but have 0 profit in case A loses the primary, then you need A’s conditional probability of winning the general election to be lower than 44% in order to make the bet positive expected value. In this example then, A’s electability range is 44%–62.5%.
This analysis does not take into account the total amount of money available to bet on each candidate. As of September 2015, Betfair has handled over $1 million of bets on the 2016 election, but the markets on some candidates are not as deep as others. If you actually tried to place bets in the fashion described above, you might find that there isn’t enough volume to fully hedge your exposure to primary results, or you might have to accept significantly worse odds in order to fill your bets.
It’s possible that someone might try to manipulate the odds by bidding up or selling down some combination of candidates. Given the amount of attention paid to prediction markets in the media, and the amount of money involved, it’s probably not a bad idea. In 2012 someone tried to do this to make it look like Mitt Romney was gaining momentum, but enough bettors stepped in to take the other sides of those bets and Romney’s odds fell back to where they started. Even though that attempt failed, people might try it again, and if/when they do, they might even succeed, in which case betting market data might only reflect what the manipulators want it to, as opposed to the wisdom of the crowds.
The electability calculation ignores the scenario where a candidate loses the primary but wins the general election. I don’t think this has ever happened on the national level, but it happened in Connecticut in 2006, and it probably has a nonzero probability of happening nationally. If it were to happen, and you had placed bets on the candidate to win the primary and lose the election, you might find that your supposedly safe “hedge” wasn’t so safe after all (on the other hand, you might get lucky and hit on both of your bets…). Some have speculated that Donald Trump in particular might run as an independent candidate if he doesn’t receive the Republican nomination, so whatever (probably small) probability the market assigns to the scenario of “Trump loses the Republican nomination but wins the presidency” would inflate his electability.
There are probably more caveats to list, for example I’ve failed to consider any trading fees or commissions incurred when placing bets. Additionally, though I have no proof, as mentioned earlier I’d guess that candidates who are longshots to win the primaries probably have higher electabilities due to the implicit assumption that if something so dramatic were to happen that caused them to win the primary, probably the same factor would help their odds in the general election.
Despite all of these caveats, I believe that the implied electability numbers do represent to some degree how bettors expect the candidates to perform in the general election, and I wonder if there should be betting markets set up that allow people to wager directly on these conditional probabilities, rather than having to place a series of bets to mimic the payout structure.
]]>LearnedLeague players, known as “LLamas”, answer trivia questions drawn from 18 assorted categories, and one of the many neat things about LearnedLeague is that it provides detailed statistics into your performance by category. Personally I was surprised at how quickly my own stats began to paint a startlingly accurate picture of my trivia knowledge: strength in math, business, sports, and geography, coupled with weakness in classical music, art, and literature. Here are my stats through 3 seasons of LearnedLeague play:
It stands to reason that performance in some of these categories should be correlated. For example, people who are good at TV trivia are probably likely to be better than average at movie trivia, so we’d expect a positive correlation between performance in the TV and film categories. It’s harder to guess at what categories might be negatively correlated. Maybe some of the more scholarly pursuits, like art and literature, would be negatively correlated with some of the more, er, plebeian categories like popular music and food/drink?
With the LearnedLeague Commissioner’s approval, I collected aggregate category stats for all recently active LLamas so that I could investigate correlations between category performance and look for other interesting trends. My dataset and code are all available on GitHub, though profile names have been anonymized.
I analyzed a total of 2,689 players, representing active LLamas who have answered at least 400 total questions. Each player has 19 associated numbers: a correct rate for each of the 18 categories, plus an overall correct rate. For each of the 153 pairs of categories, I calculated the correlation coefficient between player performance in those categories.
The pairs with the highest correlation were:
And the categories with the lowest correlation:
The scatterplots of the most and least correlated pairs look as follows. Each dot represents one player, and I’ve added linear regression trendlines:
The full list of 153 correlations is available in this Google spreadsheet. At first I was a bit surprised to see that every category pair showed a positive correlation, but upon further reflection it shouldn’t be that surprising: some people are just better at trivia, and they’ll tend to do well in all categories (none other than Ken Jennings himself is an active LLama!).
The most correlated pairs make some intuitive sense, though we should always be wary of hindsight bias. Still, it’s pretty easy to tell believable stories about the highest correlations: people who know a lot about world history probably know where places are (i.e. geography), people who watch TV also watch movies, and so on. I must say, though, that the low correlation between knowledge of math and the pop culture categories of TV, theatre, pop music, and film doesn’t do much to dispel mathematicians’ reclusive images! The only category that math shows an aboveaverage correlation to is science, so perhaps it’s true that mathematicians just live off in their own world?
You can view a scatterplot for any pair of categories by selecting them from the menus below. There’s also a bar graph that ranks the other categories by their correlation to your chosen category:
LLamas optionally provide a bit of demographic information, including gender, location, and college(s) attended. It’s not lost on me that my category performance is pretty stereotypically “male.” For better or worse, my top 3 categories—business, math, and sports—are often thought of as maledominated fields. That got me to wondering: does performance across categories predict gender?
It’s important to note that LearnedLeague members are a highly selfselected bunch, and in no way representative of the population at large. It would be wrong to extrapolate from LearnedLeague results to make a broader statement about how men and women differ in their trivia knowledge. At the same time, predictive analysis can be fun, so I used R’s rpart
package to train a recursive partitioning decision tree model which predicts a player’s gender based on category statistics. Recursive partitioning trees are known to have a tendency to overfit data, so I used R’s prune()
function to snip off some of the less important splits from the full tree model:
The decision tree uses only 4 of the 18 categories available to it: games/sport, theatre, math, and food/drink, suggesting that these are the most important categories for predicting gender. Better performance in games/sport and math makes a player more likely to be male, while better performance in theatre and food/drink makes a player more likely to be female.
The dataset includes 2,093 males and 595 females, and the model correctly categorizes gender for 2,060 of them, giving an overall accuracy rate of 77%. Note that there are more males in the dataset than there are correct predictions from the model, so in fact the ultranaive model of “always guess male” would actually achieve a higher overall accuracy rate than the decision tree. However, as noted in this review of decision trees, “such a model would be literally accurate but practically worthless.” In order to avoid this pitfall, I manually assigned prior probabilities of 50% each to male and female. This ensures that the decision tree makes an equal effort to predict male and female genders, rather than spending most of its effort getting all of the males correct, which would maximize the number of total correct predictions.
With the equal priors assigned, the model correctly predicts gender for 75% of the males and 82% of the females. Here’s the table of actual and predicted gender counts:
Predicted Male  Predicted Female  Total  
Actual Male  1,570  523  2,093 
Actual Female  105  490  595 
Total  1,675  1,013  2,688 
Another way to think about the categories’ relationship with gender is to calculate what I’ll call a “gender preference” for each category. The methodology for a single category is:
Calculating this number for each category produces a relatively easy to interpret graph that ranks categories from most “feminine” to “masculine”:
Similar to the results from the decision tree, this methodology shows that theatre and food/drink are most indicative of female players, while games/sport and math are most associated with male players.
The dataset and scripts I used for this post are available on GitHub. If you’re interested in LearnedLeague, this article provides a good overview, and you can always try your hand at a random selection of sample questions.
]]>—Michael Lewis, Liar’s Poker (1989)
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began reporting loanlevel credit performance data in 2013 at the direction of their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The stated purpose of releasing the data was to “increase transparency, which helps investors build more accurate credit performance models in support of potential risksharing initiatives.”
The socalled governmentsponsored enterprises went through a nearly $200 billion government bailout during the financial crisis, motivated in large part by losses on loans that they guaranteed, so I figured there must be something interesting in the loanlevel data. I decided to dig in with some geographic analysis, an attempt to identify the loanlevel characteristics most predictive of default rates, and more. As part of my efforts, I wrote code to transform the raw data into a more useful PostgreSQL database format, and some R scripts for analysis. The code for processing and analyzing the data is all available on GitHub.
It should not be overlooked that in the notsodistant past, i.e. when I worked as a mortgage analyst, an analysis of loanlevel mortgage data would have cost a lot of money. Between licensing data and paying for expensive computers to analyze it, you could have easily incurred costs north of a million dollars per year. Today, in addition to Fannie and Freddie making their data freely available, we’re in the midst of what I might call the “medium data” revolution: personal computers are so powerful that my MacBook Air is capable of analyzing the entire 215 GB of data, representing some 38 million loans, 1.6 billion observations, and over $7.1 trillion of origination volume. Furthermore, I did everything with free, opensource software. I chose PostgreSQL and R, but there are plenty of other free options you could choose for storage and analysis.
Both agencies released data for 30year, fully amortizing, fixedrate mortgages, which are considered standard in the U.S. mortgage market. Each loan has some static characteristics which never change for the life of the loan, e.g. geographic information, the amount of the loan, and a few dozen others. Each loan also has a series of monthly observations, with values that can change from one month to the next, e.g. the loan’s balance, its delinquency status, and whether it prepaid in full.
The PostgreSQL schema then is split into 2 main tables, called loans
and monthly_observations
. Beyond the data provided by Fannie and Freddie, I also found it helpful to pull in some external data sources, most notably the FHFA’s home price indexes and Freddie Mac’s mortgage rate survey data.
A fuller glossary of the data is available in an appendix at the bottom of this post.
I started by calculating simple cumulative default rates for each origination year, defining a “defaulted” loan as one that became at least 60 days delinquent at some point in its life. Note that not all 60+ day delinquent loans actually turn into foreclosures where the borrower has to leave the house, but missing at least 2 payments typically indicates a serious level of distress.
Loans originated from 20052008 performed dramatically worse than loans that came before them! That should be an extraordinarily unsurprising statement to anyone who was even slightly aware of the U.S. mortgage crisis that began in 2007:
About 4% of loans originated from 1999 to 2003 became seriously delinquent at some point in their lives. The 2004 vintage showed some performance deterioration, and then the vintages from 2005 through 2008 show significantly worse performance: more than 15% of all loans originated in those years became distressed.
From 2009 through present, the performance has been much better, with fewer than 2% of loans defaulting. Of course part of that is that it takes time for a loan to default, so the most recent vintages will tend to have lower cumulative default rates while their loans are still young. But as we’ll see later, there was also a dramatic shift in lending standards so that the loans made since 2009 have been much higher credit quality.
Default rates increased everywhere during the bubble years, but some states fared far worse than others. I took every loan originated between 2005 and 2007, broadly considered to be the height of reckless mortgage lending, bucketed loans by state, and calculated the cumulative default rate of loans in each state. Mouse over the map to see individual state data:
4 states in particular jump out as the worst performers: California, Florida, Arizona, and Nevada. Just about every state experienced significantly higher than normal default rates during the mortgage crisis, but these 4 states, often labeled the “sand states”, experienced the worst of it.
I also used the data to make more specific maps at the countylevel; default rates within different metropolitan areas can show quite a bit of variation. California jumps out as having the most interesting map: the highest default rates in California came from inland counties, most notably in the Central Valley and Inland Empire regions. These exurban areas, like Stockton, Modesto, and Riverside, experienced the largest increases in home prices leading up to the crisis, and subsequently the largest collapses.
The map clearly shows the central parts of California with the highest default rates, and the coastal parts with generally better default rates:
The major California metropolitan areas with the highest default rates in were:
And the major metropolitan areas with the lowest default rates:
It’s less than 100 miles from San Francisco to Modesto and Stockton, and only 35 miles from Anaheim to Riverside, yet we see such dramatically different default rates between the inland regions and their relatively more affluent coastal counterparts.
The inland cities, with more land available to allow expansion, experienced the most overbuilding, the most aggressive lenders, the highest levels of speculators looking to get rich quick by flipping houses, and so perhaps it’s not that surprising that when the housing market turned south, they also experienced the highest default rates. Not coincidentally, California has also led the nation in “housing bubble” searches on Google Trends every year since 2004.
The countylevel map of Florida does not show as much variation as the California map:
Although the regions in the panhandle had somewhat lower default rates than central and south Florida, there were also significantly fewer loans originated in the panhandle. The Tampa, Orlando, and Miami/Fort Lauderdale/West Palm Beach metropolitan areas made up the bulk of Florida mortgage originations, and all had very high default rates. The worst performing metropolitan areas in Florida were:
Arizona and Nevada have very few counties, so their maps don’t look very interesting, and each state is dominated by a single metropolitan area: Phoenix experienced a 31% cumulative default rate, and Las Vegas a 42% cumulative default rate.
The dataset includes lots of variables for each individual loan beyond geographic location, and many of these variables seem like they should correlate to mortgage performance. Perhaps most obviously, credit scores were developed specifically for the purpose of assessing default risk, so it would be awfully surprising if credit scores weren’t correlated to default rates.
Some of the additional variables include the amount of the loan, the interest rate, the loantovalue ratio (LTV), debttoincome ratio (DTI), the purpose of the loan (purchase, refinance), the type of property, and whether the loan was originated directly by a lender or by a third party. All of these things seem like they might have some predictive value for modeling default rates.
We can also combine loan data with other data sources to calculate additional variables. In particular, we can use the FHFA’s home price data to calculate current loantovalue ratios for every loan in the dataset. For example, say a loan started at an 80 LTV, but the home’s value has since declined by 25%. If the balance on the loan has remained unchanged, then the new current LTV would be 0.8 / (1  0.25) = 106.7. An LTV over 100 means the borrower is “underwater” – the value of the house is now less than the amount owed on the loan. If the borrower does not believe that home prices will recover for a long time, the borrower might rationally decide to “walk away” from the loan.
Another calculated variable is called spread at origination (SATO), which is the difference between the loan’s interest rate, and the prevailing market rate at the time of origination. Typically borrowers with weaker credit get higher rates, so we’d expect a larger value of SATO to correlate to higher default rates.
Even before formulating any specific model, I find it helpful to look at graphs of aggregated data. I took every monthly observation from 200911, bucketed along several dimensions, and calculated default rates. Note that we’re now looking at transition rates from current to defaulted, as opposed to the cumulative default rates in the previous section. Transition rates are a more natural quantity to model, since when we make future projections we have to predict not only how many loans will default, but when they’ll default.
Here are graphs of annualized default rates as a function of credit score and current LTV:
Clearly both of these variables are highly correlated with default rates, and in the directions we would expect: higher credit scores correlate to lower default rates, and higher loantovalue ratios correlate to higher default rates.
The dataset cannot tell us why any borrowers defaulted. Some probably came upon financial hardship due to the economic recession and were unable to pay their bills. Others might have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous mortgage brokers, and could never afford their monthly payments. And, yes, some also “strategically” defaulted – meaning they could have paid their mortgages, but chose not to.
The fact that current LTV is so highly correlated to default rates leads me to suspect that strategic defaults were fairly common in the depths of the recession. But why might some people walk away from loans that they’re capable of paying?
As an example, say a borrower has a $300,000 loan at a 6% interest rate against a home that had since declined in value to $200,000, for an LTV of 150. The monthly payment on such a mortgage is $1,800. Assuming a price/rent ratio of 18, approximately the national average, then the borrower could rent a similar home for $925 per month, a savings of over $10,000 per year. Of course strategically defaulting would greatly damage the borrower’s credit, making it potentially much more difficult to get new loans in the future, but for such a large monthly savings, the borrower might reasonably decide not to pay.
A Cox proportional hazards model helps give us a sense of which variables have the largest relative impact on default rates. The model assumes that there’s a baseline default rate (the “hazard rate”), and that the independent variables have a multiplicative effect on that baseline rate. I calibrated a Cox model on a random subset of loans using R’s coxph()
function:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 

The categorical variables, loan_purpose
and channel
, are the easiest to interpret because we can just look at the exp(coef)
column to see their effect. In the case of loan_purpose
, loans that were made for refinances multiply the default rate by 1.593 compared to loans that were made for purchases. For channel
, loans that were made by third party originators, e.g. mortgage brokers, increase the hazard rate by 17% compared to loans that were originated directly by lenders.
The coefficients for the continuous variables are harder to compare because they each have their own independent scales: credit scores range from roughly 600 to 800, LTVs from 30 to 150, DTIs from 20 to 60, and SATO from 1 to 1. Again I find graphs the easiest way to interpret. We can use R’s predict()
function to generate hazard rate multipliers for each independent variable, while holding all the other variables constant:
Remember that the yaxis here shows a multiplier of the base default rate, not the default rate itself. So, for example, the average current LTV in the dataset is 82, which has a multiplier of 1. If we were looking at two loans, one of which had current LTV 82, the other a current LTV of 125, then the model predicts that the latter loan’s monthly default rate is 2.65 times the default rate of the former.
All of the variables behave directionally as we’d expect: higher LTV, DTI, and SATO are all associated with higher hazard rates, while higher credit scores are associated with lower hazard rates. The graph of hazard rate multipliers shows that current LTV and credit score have larger magnitude impact on defaults than DTI and SATO. Again the model tells us nothing about why borrowers default, but it does suggest that home priceadjusted LTVs and credit scores are the most important predictors of default rates.
There is plenty of opportunity to develop more advanced default models. Many techniques, including Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression, are popular because they have relatively simple functional forms that behave well mathematically, and there are existing software packages that make it easy to calibrate parameters. On the other hand, these models can fall short because they have no meaningful connection to the actual underlying dynamics of mortgage borrowers.
Socalled agentbased models attempt to model the behavior of individual borrowers at the microlevel, then simulate many agents interacting and making individual decisions, before aggregating into a final prediction. The agentbased approach can be computationally much more complicated, but at least in my opinion it seems like a model based on traditional statistical techniques will never explain phenomena like the housing bubble and financial crisis, whereas a wellformulated agentbased model at least has a fighting chance.
We saw earlier that recently originated loans have defaulted at a much lower rate than loans originated during the bubble years. For one thing, home prices bottomed out sometime around 2012 and have rebounded some since then. The partial home price recovery causes current LTVs to decline, which as we’ve seen already, should correlate to lower default rates.
Perhaps more importantly, though, it appears that Fannie and Freddie have adopted significantly stricter lending standards starting in 2009. The average FICO score used to be 720, but since 2009 it has been more like 765. Furthermore, if we look 2 standard deviations from the mean, we see that the low end of the FICO spectrum used to reach down to about 600, but since 2009 there have been very few loans with FICO less than 680.
Tighter agency standards, coupled with a complete shutdown in the nonagency mortgage market, including both subprime and AltA lending, mean that there is very little credit available to borrowers with low credit scores (a far more difficult question is whether this is a good or bad thing!).
There are many more things we could study in the dataset. Long before investors worried about default rates on agency mortgages, they worried about voluntary prepayments due to refinancing and housing turnover. When interest rates go down, many mortgage borrowers refinance their loans to lower their monthly payments. For mortgage investors, investment returns can depend heavily on how well they project prepayments.
I’m sure some astronomical number of humanhours have been spent modeling prepayments, dating back to the 1970s when mortgage securitization started to become a big industry. Historically the models were calibrated against aggregated poollevel data, which was okay, but does not offer as much potential as loanlevel data. With more loanlevel data available, and faster computers to process it, I’d imagine that many on Wall Street are already hard at work using this relatively new data to refine their prepayment models.
Fannie and Freddie continue to improve their datasets, recently adding data for actual losses suffered on defaulted loans. In other words, when the bank has to foreclose and sell a house, how much money do the agencies typically lose? This loss severity number is itself a function of many variables, including home prices, maintenance costs, legal costs, and others. Severity will also be extremely important for mortgage investors in the proposed new world where Fannie and Freddie might no longer provide full guarantees against loss of principal.
Beyond Wall Street, I’d hope that the opensource nature of the data helps provide a better “early detection” system than we saw in the most recent crisis. A lot of people were probably generally aware that the mortgage market was in trouble as early as 2007, but unless you had access to specialized data and systems to analyze it, there was no way for most people to really know what was going on.
There’s still room for improvement: Fannie and Freddie could expand their datasets to include more than just 30year fixedrate loans. There are plenty of other types of loans, including 15year terms and loans with adjustable interest rates. 30year fixedrate loans continue to be the standard of the U.S. mortgage market, but it would still be good to release data for all of Fannie and Freddie’s loans.
It’d also be nice if Fannie and Freddie released the data in a more timely manner instead of lagged by several months to a year. The lag before releasing the data reduces its effectiveness as a tool for monitoring the general health of the economy, but again it’s much better than only a few years ago when there was no readily available data at all. In the end, the trend toward free and open data, combined with the everincreasing availability of computing power, will hopefully provide a clearer picture of the mortgage market, and possibly even prevent another financial crisis.
Mortgage data is available to download from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s websites, and the full scripts I used to load and process the data are available on GitHub
Each loan has an origination record, which includes static data that will never change for the life of the loan. Each loan also has a set of monthly observations, which record values at every month of the loan’s life. The PostgreSQL database has 2 main tables: loans
and monthly_observations
.
Beyond the data provided by Fannie and Freddie, I found it helpful to add columns to the loans
table for what we might call calculated characteristics. For example, I found that it was helpful to have a column on the loans
table called first_serious_dq_date
. This column would be populated with the first month in which a loan was 60 days delinquent, or null if the loan has never been 60 days delinquent. There’s no new information added by the column, but it’s convenient to have it available in the loans
table as opposed to the monthly_observations
table because loans
is a significantly smaller table, and so if we can avoid database joins to monthly_observations
for some analysis then that makes things faster and easier.
I also collected home price data from the FHFA, and mortgage rate data from Freddie Mac
Selected columns from the loans
table:
credit_score
, also referred to as FICOoriginal_upb
, short for original unpaid balance; the amount of the loanoltv
and ocltv
, short for original (combined) loantovalue ratio. Amount of the loan divided by the value of the home at origination, expressed as a percentage. Combined loantovalue includes and additional liens on the propertydti
, debttoincome ratio. From Freddie Mac’s documentation: the sum of the borrower’s monthly debt payments […] divided by the total monthly income used to underwrite the borrowersato
, short for spread at origination, the difference between the loan’s interest rate and the prevailing market rate at the time the loan was madeproperty_state
msa
, metropolitan statistical areahpi_index_id
, references the FHFA home price index (HPI) data. If the loan’s metropolitan statistical area has its own home price index, use the MSA index, otherwise use the statelevel index. Additionally if the FHFA provides a purchaseonly index, use purchaseonly, otherwise use purchase and refioccupancy_status
(owner, investor, second home)channel
(retail, broker, correspondent)loan_purpose
(purchase, refinance)mip
, mortgage insurance premiumfirst_serious_dq_date
, the first date on which the loan was observed to be at least 60 days delinquent. Null if the loan was never observed to be delinquentid
and loan_sequence_number
, loan_sequence_number
are the unique string IDs assigned by Fannie and Freddie, id
is a unique integer designed to save space in the monthly_observations
tableSelected columns from the monthly_observations
table:
loan_id
, for joining against the loans
table, loans.id = monthly_observations.loan_id
datecurrent_upb
, current unpaid balanceprevious_upb
, the unpaid balance in the previous monthloan_age
dq_status
and previous_dq_status
More info available in the documentations provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
]]>I was curious what the FiveThirtyEight graph would look like if every team didn’t begin every game at 50% win probability, so I took all of the NBA ingame gambling odds from Gambletron 2000 for the 201415 regular season, and produced a similar interactive visual. Gamblers of course take into account all available information when determining a team’s win probability, including team quality, injuries, motivation, and anything else they think is relevant:
The xaxis in the above graph is time in the game, and the yaxis is the average win probability for each team at that point of the game, according to ingame gambling odds
Most series in this gambling data graph are much flatter compared to the FiveThirtyEight graph, where every team starts at 50% before fanning out to its final winning percentage. The flatter gambling graph makes sense because gamblers do a pretty good job of figuring out pregame win probabilities – if they didn’t, it’d be easy to make a lot of money gambling, which, spoiler, it isn’t!
Nevertheless, there are some teams that deviate substantially from the expected winning percentages implied by gambling odds. Here’s a scatterplot that shows each team’s expected pregame winning percentage on the xaxis, and actual winning percentage on the yaxis. The teams that are above the diagonal line are the ones that are outperforming gamblers’ expectations, whereas the ones below the diagnoal line are performing worse than gamblers expected (hover over the points to see the data):
The Atlanta Hawks led the league in “wins above gamblers’ expectations”, with an actual winning percentage of 73.2% compared to an expected winning rate of 61.8%. The Houston Rockets and Golden State Warriors have also both performed significantly above gamblers’ expectations. The lowly Minnesota Timberwolves, in addition to having the worst absolute record in the league, are performing the worst relative to gamblers’ expectations. The Timberwolves were expected to win 26.7% of their games, and yet have only managed to win 19.5%.
Since Gambletron 2000 tracks more than just the NBA, I generated the same graphs based on ingame gambling data from the 201415 NFL season and the 2014 MLB season. Here are the NFL graphs:
The Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, and New England Patriots performed the best relative to gamblers’ expectations, while Tennessee Titans, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and New Orleans Saints all won significantly fewer games than expected.
The MLB graphs are notable for how much closer together the teams are in expected win probability. In both the NBA and NFL, expected pregame win probabilities range from roughly 25% to 75%, but in baseball all of the teams fall between 40% and 60% pregame win probability:
The Kansas City Royals and Baltimore Orioles outperformed the most, while the Colorado Rockies, Arizona Diamondbacks, and Oakland Athletics fell shortest of gamblers’ expectations. The A’s are also interesting because gamblers gave them the highest expected win probability of any team, and yet they fell well short of expectations.
N.B. the MLB data includes only about 65% of all games because gambling markets are declared invalid if the previously announced pitchers don’t start as expected. Accordingly, the actual winning percentages might not match up to the full 162game records.
]]>NAND gates are functionally complete, which means that you can implement any boolean function using only NAND gates, even one as complicated as Twitter’s corporate strategy statement:
Twitter’s corporate strategy statement, via the Wall Street Journal
]]>TCBI  1 mo  1 yr  

TechCrunch has established itself as a leading resource for startuprelated news, so I thought it would be fun to analyze every TechCrunch headline to see what we might learn about the startup funding environment over the past few years. Without further ado, I present the TechCrunch Bubble Index, or as I like to call it, the TCBI:
The TCBI measures the number of headlines on TechCrunch over the past 90 days that specifically relate to startups raising money. I defined a “startup fundraise” as one where the amount raised was at least $100,000 and less than $150 million. A higher TCBI means more TechCrunch stories about startups raising money, which might broadly indicate a vibrant fundraising environment. For example, a TCBI of 209 on November 16, 2014, means that there were 209 TechCrunch headlines about startup fundraises between August 19 and November 16, or 2.3 per day.
I wrote a basic scraper to grab every TechCrunch headline dating back to mid2005, then wrote a series of somewhat convoluted regular expressions to extract relevant information from each headline: was the story about a fundraise? If so, how much was raised? Is the company filing for an IPO, acquiring another company, or maybe shutting down entirely? The scraper parses TechCrunch’s RSS feed every hour, so the above graph should continue to update even after I’ve published this post. As of November 2014, there were about 135,000 articles total, just over 5,000 of which were about startup fundraises. The code is available on GitHub.
The TCBI’s list of caveats is longer than the list of Ashton Kutcher’s seed investments (42 TechCrunch headlines mention him by name), but nevertheless it’s still interesting to look at some trends. Nobody will be surprised to learn that the number of TechCrunch headlines about startups raising money has broadly increased since 2006:
There’s at least one fairly obvious followup question, though: how has the total number of TechCrunch articles changed over that time period? It turns out that the rate of total TechCrunch stories published per 90day window has actually declined since 2011:
TechCrunch posts about more than just fundraises, but we can use these two graphs together to calculate the percentage of all TechCrunch stories that relate to startups raising money. That percentage was as low as 1% in 2009, but increased to as high as 9% before settling down to around 7% today:
Just because TechCrunch is posting more stories about fundraises, both in total and as a percentage, doesn’t mean that the startup funding environment is necessarily more favorable. It might well be that TechCrunch’s editorial staff has determined that fundraising stories generate the most traffic, and so over time they’ve started covering a larger swath of the fundraising landscape.
I don’t know anything about TechCrunch’s traffic data, but dollars to donuts I’d bet that fundraising stories get good traffic numbers, and the larger the amount raised, the more pageviews. I think back to Martin Scorsese’s character from Quiz Show when he explains the popularity of rigged game shows:
See, the audience didn’t tune in to watch some amazing display of intellectual ability. They just wanted to watch the money
Speaking of money, although the TCBI is based on the number of fundraises, we can also look at the total amount raised:
In the spring of 2014, investors pumped more than $5 billion into startups (as reported on TechCrunch) over a 90 day period. More recently, in the fall of 2014, that number has declined by almost 40%, to just over $3 bn. The earlier TCBI graph showed a similar decline, from a high of 346 in April 2014 to a value of 209 as I write this. In fact, the TCBI is now at its lowest value since June 2012, and the percentage of all TechCrunch articles that are about startups raising money has declined from 9% to 7% in 2014 alone.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s harder for startups to raise money today than it was six months ago. It could be that TechCrunch has consciously decided to report on fewer fundraises, though my uninformed guess is that’s not true. It could be that more startups raise in “stealth mode” without announcing to the press, which would cause the TCBI to decline. It’s also possible that it is simply getting harder to raise money!
I bucketed each fundraise article based on the amount raised to see if there are any trends within investment rounds (seed, series A, etc.):
All of the buckets are down from their peaks, but the bucket between $2 million and $10 million, which roughly corresponds to series A rounds, has shown the smallest decline relative to the other buckets.
Of course, raising money isn’t the only thing that matters to startups, even in the salacious world of the tech media. We can take a look at the number of TechCrunch stories about acquisitions, which shows a fairly similar pattern to the TCBI, peaking in early 2014 and declining a bit since then:
And on a more somber note, TechCrunch posts the occasional story about a company shutting down, though there are far fewer of those, at least for now:
You know you’ve made it in the tech world when people start calling other startups “the [your startup] for [plural noun]”. TechCrunch certainly contributes to this trend, and I couldn’t resist parsing out some X for Y formulations to find common values of X and Y. The most common pairing was “Instagram for Video”, with a total of eight headlines, followed by “Netflix for Books” and “Pinterest for Men”, with three apiece. Here are some other good ones:
Airbnb for Dogs, Airbnb for Creative Work and Meeting Spaces, Airbnb for Storage, Airbnb for Women’s Closets, Airbnb for Elite Universities, Airbnb for Storage, Airbnb for Pets, Airbnb for HomeCooked Meals, Airbnb for The 1%, Airbnb for Private Jets, Airbnb for Boats, Airbnb for Pets, Airbnb for University Students, Airbnb for Boats, Airbnb for Takeout, Airbnb for Shared Office Space, Airbnb for Hostel Hoppers, Airbnb for Event Spaces, Airbnb for Travel Experiences, Airbnb for Car RideSharing, Airbnb for Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, Airbnb for Workspace, Airbnb for Office Space, Airbnb for Cars, Airbnb for Tutoring, AirBnB for Experiences, AirBnB for Car Rentals
Uber for House Painting, Uber for Weed, Uber for Flowers, Uber for Beauty, Uber for Anything, Uber for Bike Repair, Uber for Laundry, Uber for Gift Giving, Uber for Flowers, Uber for Medical Transport, Uber for Dog Walking, Uber for Massage, Uber for Private Jet Travel, Uber for Car Test Drives, Uber for Maids, Uber for Carwashes, Uber for The Courier Industry
LinkedIn for Medical Professionals, LinkedIn for Musicians, LinkedIn for Creatives, LinkedIn for The Military, LinkedIn for Creative Professionals, LinkedIn for Gamers, LinkedIn for MDs, LinkedIn for College Students, LinkedIn for The Gay Community, LinkedIn for Athletes, LinkedIn for Physicians, LinkedIn for Actors, Musicians, and Models, LinkedIn for Scientists, LinkedIn for BlueCollar Workers
Again, the code to scrape TechCrunch’s historical headlines, parse the RSS feed for new stories, and extract data via regular expressions, is available on GitHub. You can also fetch the time series of TCBI values by making a GET request to http://tcbi.toddwschneider.com/data.
]]>That got me wondering: if a post is on reddit’s second (or third, or fourth) page, what are the chances that it’ll make it to the first page? reddit shows 25 posts per page by default, and at some point I saw my post was at the #26 rank – the very top of the second page, only one spot away from making it to the front page! At that point it seemed inevitable that it would make it to page one… or was it? Of course it did make it to page one, peaking at #14, but I decided I’d investigate to see what I could learn about a reddit post’s chances of making it from the top 100 to the top 25.
Much to my surprise, I found out that reddit’s front pages are not a pure “meritocracy” based on votes, but that rankings depend heavily on subreddits. The subreddits themselves seem to follow a quota system that allocates certain subreddits to specific slots on pages one and two, and also prevents the front page from devolving entirely into animal gifs. As a final kicker, in case it wasn’t completely obvious, I learned that links on the front pages of reddit receive a lot of traffic!
Before we get to the analysis, here’s an interactive visual of the reddit top 100 over the course of a single day. Each post that made the top 100 has its own series in the graph, where the x axis is time of day and the y axis is the post’s reddit rank (i.e. #1 = top of page one, #26 = top of page two, etc). The colors of each series are determined by subreddit – more on that later in this post. You can hover to highlight the path of an individual post, click and drag to zoom, click through to view the underlying thread on reddit, or change the date to see the rankings from different days. At first glance it’s pretty clear that posts in the top 50 maintain their ranks longer than posts from 51100, which turn over much faster:
Fortunately reddit makes it very easy to collect data: the front page is always available as JSON at https://www.reddit.com/.json. I set up a simple Rails application to scrape the top 100 posts (pages 1–4) from reddit every 5 minutes and dump the data into a PostgreSQL database, then I wrote some R scripts to analyze the data. All of the code and data used in this post are available on GitHub.
The scraper ran for about 6 weeks, over which time I collected a dataset that includes some 15,000 posts and 1.2 million observations – any post that appeared in the default reddit top 100 over that interval is included.
Plenty has been written about how reddit’s ranking algorithm works, the short version is that a post’s vote score and submission time (age) are the most important factors, so the highest ranked posts will be the ones that earn a disproportionate number of upvotes over a short time period. As we’ll soon see, though, votes and age are not in fact the only important factors that determine rank on reddit’s default front pages.
The first analysis was to graph the probability of a post making the top 25 as a function of its current rank. In other words, take all of the observations of posts that meet the following criteria:
and calculate the percentage of posts at each rank that eventually made it to the top 25. That graph looks like this:
This basic analysis gave me my first answer: when the traveling salesman gif was ranked #26 and I thought it was inevitable that it would make the front page, in fact it had about an 84% chance of making the top 25. However, this graph raises at least as many questions as it answers, in particular: how could it possibly be that almost half of the posts at rank #50 will eventually make the top 25, while less than 2% of the posts at rank #45 will achieve the same result?
That seems bizarre, as I would have expected a monotonically decreasing graph. I started investigating by looking at the distribution of the best rank for each post, which showed a similar unexpected behavior, especially for posts whose best rank was on page two:
647 posts in the dataset appeared at the #1 rank, the most common best rank achieved. The strange results though are again on page two: about 3 times as many posts peaked at ranks in the low 50s compared to ranks in the mid 40s, and in general it seems like few posts achieve their best rank on page two relative to pages three and four. You might hypothesize that posts don’t peak on page two because many of the posts that make it to page two later make it to page one, but that theory is contradicted by the earlier graph which showed that posts on page two have lower conditional probabilities of making it to page one compared to posts on pages three and four.
When I looked at the distribution of scores at each rank, it turned out that posts in the 40s (the range with low top 25 probability) typically have much lower scores than posts at neighboring ranks:
It turns out that a post’s score and age are not the only important determinants of where the post appears in the default overall ranking. Every post must belong to a subreddit, and the choice of subreddit can have a large impact on the post’s ranking.
At any given time there are 50 “default” subreddits which feed the default homepage. The posts in my dataset came from a total of 58 subreddits, though a handful of those had only a single post in the top 100. There were 49 subreddits with at least 10 posts in the top 100, led by r/funny, r/pics, and r/aww. Here’s a Google spreadsheet with the full listing of subreddits ordered by number of posts in the top 100.
I started looking at the distribution of observed ranks for posts from individual subreddits, which revealed some unexpected trends. For example, when I made a histogram of observed ranks for all posts in the most popular subreddit, r/funny, I found that r/funny posts simply never appear on the bottom half of page one or most of page two:
This caught me by surprise: I had thought that reddit’s front pages were determined purely based on votes and age, but clearly that wasn’t the case. I made the same graph for different subreddits, and a few patterns started to emerge. Some subreddits, especially the most popular ones, tended to look like r/funny above, but other subreddits had completely different distributions of observed ranks. Here’s the distribution of observed ranks from posts in the r/personalfinance subreddit:
Many posts from r/personalfinance appear in the 4050 range, but very few posts made the top 25, which is consistent with the earlier graph that showed less than 2% of posts at rank #45 eventually reach the front page. Other subreddits looked different still. My traveling salesman animation was posted in r/dataisbeautiful, where the distribution of observed ranks ranks looks like this:
Not many posts in r/dataisbeautiful made it to the top of page one, but a bunch appeared on the bottom half of page one and most of page two, except for some ranks in the 40s which were dominated by subreddits like /personalfinance.
As I looked at more and more subreddits, it became apparent that there were three “types” of subreddits, represented by r/funny, r/personalfinance, and r/dataisbeautiful above. Here’s a series of histograms that show the distribution of observed ranks by subreddit. The individual subreddit labels aren’t so important, focus instead on the three different distribution shapes:
I used kmeans clustering based on observed rank distributions to assign each subreddit to 1 of 3 clusters, which are colorcoded in the graph above. The clusters are:
AskReddit, aww, funny, gaming, gifs, IAmA, mildlyinteresting, movies, news, pics, science, Showerthoughts, todayilearned, videos, worldnews
Documentaries, Fitness, gadgets, history, InternetIsBeautiful, listentothis, nosleep, personalfinance, philosophy, UpliftingNews, WritingPrompts
Art, askscience, books, creepy, dataisbeautiful, DIY, EarthPorn, explainlikeimfive, food, Futurology, GetMotivated, Jokes, LifeProTips, Music, nottheonion, OldSchoolCool, other, photoshopbattles, space, sports, television, tifu, TwoXChromosomes
With the number of dimensions reduced from some 50 subreddits to only 3 clusters, it becomes easier to look at the differences between clusters. Here’s the distribution of ranks by cluster:
And an area chart which shows the distribution of clusters at each rank:
Cluster 1 represents the most popular subreddits, like r/funny, which dominate the top of page one, but almost never show up on page two. Cluster 2 contains subreddits like r/personalfinance which dominate the bottom of page two, but very rarely make it to page one. Cluster 3 contains everything else: subreddits that don’t often make it to the top of page one, but aren’t stuck in page two purgatory either; cluster 3 subreddits typically represent the majority of posts at the bottom of page one and top of page two. By the way, in the earlier interactive graph, posts from clusters 1, 2, and 3 are colored red, green, and blue, respectively.
Since these subreddit clusters behave so differently, it might make sense to recalculate the earlier graph showing the conditional probability of making the top 25 separately for each subreddit cluster:
My traveling salesman animation was posted in r/dataisbeautiful, which is part of cluster 3. This newest graph shows that of posts in cluster 3 that reach the #26 rank, 87% will eventually reach the top 25, which is a bit higher than the 84% number calculated earlier based on results aggregated across all subreddits.
The new set of 3 conditional probability graphs makes more intuitive sense than the single earlier graph, which showed a large decline in probability for posts ranked in the 40s, then a big increase for posts ranked in the low 50s. We can see now that the large decline and increase were due to the shifting mixture of subreddit clusters: the ranks in the mid 40s are usually posts from cluster 2, and cluster 2 posts almost never get to the front page, hence the low aggregate conditional probabilities for ranks in the 40s.
Cluster 3’s conditional probability graph still looks a bit less satisfying because it is not monotonically decreasing. The cluster 3 conditional probabilities in the 40s are lower than the conditional probabilities on pages three and four, and there’s no obvious reason why. Maybe my subreddit clusters are not defined perfectly, or there’s something else entirely that causes the cluster 3 posts ranked in the 40s to have lower probability of making the front page than posts in the 50s.
As mentioned previously, it’s a known fact that reddit incorporates vote score and age into its rankings. The rankings, however, are not a strict meritocracy based only on these two factors. Many posts in the top 100 have relatively low scores, say, under 200. Nearly all of the posts that make the top 100 despite low scores come from clusters 2 and 3, which suggests that a post in a cluster 2 or 3 subreddit needs fewer votes to appear in the top 100 compared to a post from cluster 1:
I don’t know the exact justification for this, but the preference system for clusters 2 and 3 is probably designed to keep reddit’s default top pages more varied than they would be due to votes alone. Based on anecdotal experience, upvote systems favor more easily digestible content – stuff like cute animal gifs. Sure, everybody loves cute animal gifs, but it’s also good to offer a wider variety of content, from the sublime to the ridiculous, even if it that requires overriding the direct democracy of a pure votebased system. Looking back at the list of subreddit clusters, it seems like cluster 1 has the most fun and cheap laughs, cluster 2 contains more serious and discussionoriented posts, and cluster 3 is a bit of a grab bag somewhere in between.
At the upper echelons, very few posts that make the top 25 have scores less than 1000, regardless of which subreddit cluster they come from:
Posts in the top 25 have to have a high score regardless of subreddit, but posts don’t need to have a high score to be on page two. Furthermore, page two excludes many of the most popular subreddits, and therefore can often take on a more informational and less “cute” vibe. On pages three and four, posts from any subreddit cluster can appear, but posts from cluster 1 subreddits have much higher scores than their counterparts from clusters 2 and 3, which again suggests that votes are graded on a curve that favors clusters 2 and 3:
I haven’t included post age in the above graphs because graphs can only contain so many dimensions before they become indecipherable, but heat maps offer another way to visualize the relationship between score, age, and a post’s probability of making the top 25. As expected, the heat map shows that the probability of making the front page is generally highest when age is low and score is high, but so few cluster 2 posts achieve a high score that the aggregate probability of a cluster 2 post making the top 25 from the top 100 is very slim:
I was particularly impressed that my salesman gif received over 1.3 million pageviews on Imgur. I thought it’d be cool to measure pageviews as a function of reddit rank – my post only got to rank #14, just imagine how many pageviews the posts at #1 must receive!
Imgur is by far the most popular domain in the dataset, accounting for 43% of all posts that reached the reddit top 100. This is crucial for an analysis of pageviews, because reddit doesn’t provide pageview data for each post, but Imgur does, so while we can’t know how many views nonImgur posts received, we can at least roughly observe the effect of reddit rank on traffic.
I grabbed pageview data for every Imgur post, grouped by best rank achieved, then calculated the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, which look like this:
The median Imgur post that reaches #1 on reddit has over 2 million pageviews. Again we see a strange result that Imgur posts in the 50s actually have more pageviews than the posts in the 20s, but this can once again probably be explained by subreddits: the most popular cluster 1 subreddits get a lot of direct traffic themselves, and they’re the ones that tend to dominate the ranks in the 50s. Overall, Imgur accounts for 58% of posts in cluster 1, 0.04% of cluster 2, and 35% of cluster 3.
I had always thought that reddit’s front pages operated as some kind of direct democracy, and I was surprised to learn that’s not actually the case. reddit’s codebase is largely open source, so it’s possible that the logic that reserves certain ranks for certain subreddits is completely in the open, but again I didn’t know about it, and neither did any of the redditors I asked about it.
I’d be curious to see what would happen if all subreddits were treated equally: my guess is that the reddit default top 100 would contain an even higher rate of funny pictures, but who knows, maybe there’d be some unintended side effects that would lead people to upvote more varied content.
The code and data are both available on GitHub. There are 3 main components of the repo:
If you’d rather not wade through the math then you can skip ahead to the “practical exploration” section of this post to see some actual match play data, but if you like puzzles then let’s assume the following match play rules, adapted and condensed via the USGA:
We can depict the set of all possible match play paths as a tree that looks like this:
Let’s say that Adam and Bubba are playing a match, and we’ll arbitrarily score it from A’s perspective, so that a positive score means that A is winning and a negative score means that B is winning. Every match starts at the leftmost point of the tree: 0 holes played, 0 score (“all square”). The match progresses hole by hole, and moves from left to right across the tree. There are 3 possible outcomes on each hole: A wins the hole, B wins the hole, or the hole is halved. We can denote A winning a hole with an up arrow (↑), B winning a hole with a down arrow (↓), and a halve with a right arrow (→).
Any path can then be written as a sequence of arrows. For example, one path is where the two players halve each hole for 18 consecutive holes, resulting in a tied match:
→ → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → →
Another path would be if A won the first 10 holes. In that scenario, A would be up by 10 holes with 8 to play, and so the match would be over:
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
From basic combinatorics, we know there are 3^{18} = 387,420,489 sequences that are 18 characters long and contain only the ↑, →, and ↓ characters. However, many of those sequences are not valid match play paths, because the match ends when one player’s lead is greater than the number of holes to play. For example, the sequence of 18 consecutive ↑ characters is invalid because the match would end after 10 holes. It’s worth noting though that 3^{18} serves as an upper bound on the final answer.
If we wanted to follow this combinatoric approach to the problem, we could do it, but it would be pretty tedious and annoying. We could phrase a series of questions like, “how many character sequences are there that contain only ↑, →, and ↓, are 12 characters long, end with ↑ or →, and contain exactly 7 more ↑ characters than ↓ characters?” That’s an answerable question (3,157), but it only tells us one small piece of the puzzle: the number of possible paths in a match that ends with a score of +7 after 12 holes played, or “7 & 6” in golf terminology (“7 up with 6 to play”). We could answer a question like the one above for every possible terminal node, then sum the results, but maybe there’s a (slightly) more elegant way to do this?
Backward induction provides a muchneeded respite from the complication of combinations and permutations. Instead of trying to construct sequences of arrows subject to multiple constraints, we can work across the tree backward, i.e., from right to left, defining the number of paths to a node in terms of the number of paths to the nodes before it.
Let’s simplify the problem a bit by looking at the tree for a 3 hole match:
Take a look at the node in the tree at (2, 0): that’s 2 holes played, 0 score. How could we have gotten to that point? Well, we can look at all the line segments coming into the node and see that there were 3 possible previous states: (1, 1), (1, 0), and (1, 1), so the number of paths to (2, 0) is equal to the sum of the number of paths to each of (1, 1), (1, 0), and (1, 1).
Now look at the node at (3, 1): there are only 2 possible previous nodes, (2, 1) and (2, 0). A 3 hole match could not have been at (2, 2) before coming to (3, 1) because (2, 2) is a terminal node so the match would have ended there. Other nodes, for example (1, 1), have only 1 possible previous node.
So every node after (0, 0) has exactly 3, 2, or 1 possible previous nodes, and we can define the number of paths to a given node as the sum of the number of paths to its possible previous nodes. (0, 0) is a special base case because every match starts there, so we can say that there is exactly 1 path that gets a match to (0, 0). Let p(h, s) equal the number of paths to the node at h holes played, and score s. Then our full induction specification looks like this:
Where v(h, s) is a boolean function whose value is 1 if (h, s) is a valid node where the match continues, and 0 otherwise:
For example, v(10, 10) = 0 because the match does not continue if the score is +10 after 10 holes, v(0, 1) = 0 because a score of +1 after 0 holes is not a valid score, and v(1, 1) = 1 because +1 after 1 hole is a valid node and the match continues.
With the above induction specification, the final step is to evaluate p(h, s) for every possible terminal node in the 18 hole tree (i.e. all the red nodes), then take the sum to calculate the total number of possible paths. I wrote an R script to do this, which you can see on GitHub. The output gives a final answer of 169,688,089 total possible paths. This is less than half of the 3^{18} number we hypothesized earlier as an upper bound. 132,458,427 of the valid paths are 18 characters long, which means that 34.2% of all 18 character sequences of ↑, →, and ↓ characters are valid paths. As a sanity check I also did the backward induction in a Google spreadsheet, which got the same answer and makes for a nice visual aid.
Now that we know there are roughly 170 million possible match play paths, we can turn to actual data to see what the reallife distribution of paths looks like. The Ryder Cup, USGA amateur tournaments, and WGCAccenture Match Play Championship all use a match play format. The USGA data was the most accessible so I wrote a quick Ruby script to scrape holebyhole scores from every USGA amateur match from 2010 through 2014—a total of 50,773 holes played over 3,112 matches—and dump the results into a .csv file.
Intuitively we shouldn’t expect every path to occur with equal probability. The paths would have equal probability if every hole were an independent event with 1/3 probability for each of ↑, →, and ↓, but the holes are not independent, and the probabilities are not all 1/3. In fact of all the holes played in the dataset, 42% resulted in a halve, with the other 58% won by one of the players. Since a halve occurs more than 1/3 of the time, that will tend to put more weight on the paths that stay closer to 0 score as opposed to larger magnitude scores.
On the other hand, each hole is not an independent event. Even though USGA championships are selected to include only highly skilled players, there will inevitably be some matches where one player is better than the other, and these matches will tend to have larger margins of victory. It would seem particularly unlikely, for example, to see a path where A wins each of the first 9 holes then B wins each of the second 9 holes, resulting in a tie. If A won 9 consecutive holes, it’d be a pretty safe bet that A is the better player than B, and very unlikely that B would win 9 consecutive holes against the superior player.
Of the 3,112 USGA matches that I scraped, there are 3,110 unique paths. There are two paths that appear twice each, one that finishes 8 & 7, the other 4 & 3. The overall distribution of final scores from the USGA matches is wider and flatter than the distribution would be if we picked paths randomly from a uniform distribution:
This shouldn’t be too surprising, because as mentioned earlier the theoretical uniform distribution would come true if every hole were an independent event with equal probabilities for ↑, →, and ↓, and we don’t believe that to be the case. The wider actual distribution might suggest that many matches are between players of unequal ability: if some players are better than others then we would expect the flatter distribution with more large margins of victory.
We can also investigate whether the likelihood of winning the next hole is a function of the current score: all things held constant, we should probably expect the currently leading player to be the better player, and therefore more likely to win the next hole. I took all back9 holes and aggregated the probabilities for winning, losing, and halving the next hole given the current match score, and sure enough the probability of a player winning a hole increases as a function of that player’s lead:
It’s a bit strange that the seemingly arbitrary “player 1” seems to win more than average, but I think it’s probably because USGA tournaments are seeded based on qualifying stroke play scores, and “player 1” as I’ve defined it is the stronger seed, at least in the early rounds. “Player 1” won 60.3% of the 3,112 matches, which would be an extremely unlikely result if each match were independent with 50/50 odds, so that might suggest the ordering of player names on the USGA’s website is somehow related to skill level.
Another potentially interesting phenomenon is the relative paucity of matches that end with a score of ±1 as opposed to 0 or ±2. I have no supporting data, but I’d hypothesize that players who are down 1 on the final hole tend to play more aggressively, which makes them more likely to either win or lose the hole, and less likely to halve it—imagine an aggressive birdie putt, which maybe goes in, or maybe goes 6 feet past the hole and leads to a bogey. It’s also possible that the effect is just noise and I’m making up a story about it, which is always an important caveat!
Finally, I thought it’d be fun to build something like the Facebook friendship map, except with the match play tree. The brightness and thickness of each segment represents the number of USGA matches that passed through that segment, so for example the segment from (0, 0) to (1, 0) is the brightest because that’s the most common path: every match starts at (0, 0), and more of them move to (1, 0) than any other node.
The USGA holebyhole data is available as a .csv at https://github.com/toddwschneider/matchplay, along with R code to calculate the number of paths, draw match play trees, and do some data analysis, plus Ruby code to scrape the data. There’s also a Google spreadsheet with the number of paths calculation.
]]>Here’s an animation of the annealing process finding the shortest path through the 48 state capitals of the contiguous United States:
We start by picking an arbitrary initial tour from the set of all valid tours. From that initial tour we “move around” and check random neighboring tours to see how good they are. There are so many valid tours—(47! / 2), to be exact—that we won’t be able to test every possible solution. But a welldesigned annealing process eventually reaches a solution that, if it is not the global optimum, is at least good enough. Here’s a stepbystep guide:
The key to the simulated annealing method is in step 4: even if we’re considering a tour that is worse than the tour we already have, we still sometimes accept the worse tour temporarily, because it might be the stepping stone that gets us out of a local minimum and ultimately closer to the global minimum. The temperature is usually pretty high at the beginning of the annealing process, so that initially we’ll accept more tours, even the bad ones. Over time, though, we lower the temperature until we’re only accepting new tours that improve upon our solution.
If you look at the bottom 2 graphs of the earlier USA animation, you can see that at the beginning the “Current Tour Distance” jumps all over the place while the temperature is high. As we turn the temperature down, we accept fewer longer tours and eventually we converge on the globally optimal tour.
That’s all well and good, but why do we need the annealing step at all? Why not do the same process with 0 temperature, i.e. accept the new tour if and only if it’s better than the existing tour? It turns out if we follow this naive “hill climbing” strategy, we’re far more likely to get stuck in a local minimum. Histograms of the results for 1,000 trials of the traveling salesman through the state capitals show that simulated annealing fares significantly better than hill climbing:
Simulated annealing doesn’t guarantee that we’ll reach the global optimum every time, but it does produce significantly better solutions than the naive hill climbing method. The results via simulated annealing have a mean of 10,690 miles with standard deviation of 60 miles, whereas the naive method has mean 11,200 miles and standard deviation 240 miles.
And so, while you might not think that Nikolay Chernyshevsky or Chief Wiggum would be the best people to offer an intuition behind simulated annealing, it turns out that they, along with clichespewers everywhere, understand the simple truth behind simulated annealing: sometimes things really do have to get worse before they can get better.
Here’s the Shiny app that lets you pick up to 30 cities on the map, set some parameters of the annealing schedule, then run the actual simulated annealing process (or just click ‘solve’ if you’re lazy). Give it a shot below! Bonus points if you recognize where the default list of cities comes from…
The app is hosted at ShinyApps.io, but if you want to run the app on your local machine, it’s very easy, all you need to do is paste the following into your R console:
1 2 3 

The full code is available on GitHub
Here’s another animated gif using a bunch of world capitals. The “solution” here is almost certainly not the global optimum, but it’s still fun to watch!
My dream Weddings & Celebrations data journalism project is which firms get definite vs. indefinite articles ("Goldman, [the/a] bank …").
— Matt Levine (@matt_levine) July 14, 2014
This is amusing of course because in the world of prestigeobsessed New York Times wedding announcements, the definite article “the” is far more prestigious than the indefinite article “a” – you want to work at the place everyone knows as the consulting firm, not a consulting firm!
I crawled through the Wedding Crunchers database of NYT wedding announcements to look for mentions of investment banks and consulting firms immediately preceded by “the” or “a”, then compiled the results into the spreadsheet at the bottom of this page. Caveats apply: some firms (JPMorgan, for example) tend not to be explicitly referred to as banks or consultancies, so we cannot measure where they fall on this particular New York Times Weddings & Celebrations prestige scale.
The results are pretty much what you’d expect: the usual suspects of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and McKinsey are almost exclusively referred to as “the” investment bank or consulting firm. Jefferies & Company receives the most mentions as “an” investment bank. While this puts Jefferies toward the bottom of the prestige scale, that might actually be a good omen: Lehman Brothers, Salomon Brothers, and Bear Stearns all rank highly in prestige, and we’ve seen how that worked out for them…
]]>Of course that 10% already had built in some likelihood that James would choose to play for the Cavaliers next season. Before Cleveland was considered a threat to land LeBron, their championship odds were around 2%, so the 10% Cleveland odds immediately before LeBron’s decision perhaps reflected market expectations that LeBron had a 50% chance of choosing Cleveland: 0.5 * 0.18 + 0.5 * 0.02 = 0.1
The Houston Rockets were initially the other big winners of The Decision Part II. Chris Bosh had been expected to join the Rockets if LeBron left Miami, and so the Rockets’ championship odds increased from 5% to around 15% immediately after LeBron’s announcement. Unfortunately for Houston, though, it later came out that Bosh was returning to the Miami Heat, and Houston’s championship odds subsequently declined back to around 6%
UPDATED: some folks have asked how the Indiana Pacers’ championship odds changed in the wake of Paul George’s serious leg injury. The Pacers had been around 4.4% to win the championship before George got hurt, but they’ve since declined to 2.5%:
]]>I found myself in the above situation recently, and decided that it’d be interesting to know what is the longest disambiguation page on all of Wikipedia. John Smith has 205 entries, which seems like a lot, but maybe there are other generic terms that have even more Wikipedia entries?
Lots of John Smiths!
Luckily Wikipedia provides an alphabetical list of all ~250,000 disambiguation pages. I modified the Rap Genius Trackback Scraper to iterate through every disambiguation page, count up the number of list items in each page’s “may refer to” section, and store the results in a database.
Without further ado, the top 10 longest Wikipedia disambiguation pages:
St. Mary’s Church is the most ambiguous term on Wikipedia, followed by Communist Party, and Aliabad, which is apparently a common Persian town name. Now if only we could get one of the many Communist Parties to hold a group meeting at a St. Mary’s Church in an Aliabad…
Other tidbits:
Here’s a Google Spreadsheet with the top 1,000 longest pages, and you can download the full dataset as a .csv from GitHub
]]>
Most of the talk focused on writing some code to do ngram analysis (here’s the GitHub repo), but there were also a few fun new graphs that show the rise of tech and programming in New York Times wedding announcements.
The word programmer now appears more frequently than the word banker in New York Times wedding announcements, though to be fair that’s more a function of banker on the decline as opposed to programmer on the rise:
And Google has overtaken Goldman Sachs as a more commonly mentioned employer:
Remember you can do your own searches at WeddingCrunchers.com!
]]>