ProductionAnalytics

Automated Media Analysis Pipeline

Parameterised Notebook Execution · Parallel Orchestration

4analysis tracks run daily, fully automated and reproducible

Orchestrates daily automated analysis across multiple media content categories using Papermill for parameterised Jupyter notebook execution. Each analysis category runs as an independently parameterised notebook, supporting both sequential and parallel execution modes.

Engagement

Status
Production
Primary KPI
Daily analysis run fully automated
Starting point
Manual per-category notebook execution
Scope
Recurring media monitoring across 4 analysis tracks
My role
AI engineer (pipeline orchestration + reproducibility design)

01 Overview

From manual per-category notebook execution to daily analysis run fully automated.

Before

Manual per-category notebook execution

After

Daily analysis run fully automated

How it works

The pipeline orchestrates daily automated media analysis using Papermill to execute parameterised Jupyter notebooks. Each of four analysis categories — headline framing, generalisation bias, misrepresentation, and negative aspect coverage — runs as a separate notebook template. A top-level orchestrator script injects daily parameters and executes notebooks either sequentially or in parallel via Python's multiprocessing.Pool. Executed notebooks are saved as timestamped output files, serving as both deliverables and full execution audit logs.

What I built

  • Parameterised notebooks via Papermill — same template, different daily parameters
  • Categories: headlines, generalisation bias, misrepresentation, negative aspects
  • Parallel execution via multiprocessing.Pool for independent category runs
  • Fully reproducible: output notebooks capture all execution state

02 The system

Architecture at a glance.

FIG. 07 — SYSTEM ARCHITECTUREDaily rundate paramsPapermillorchestratorHeadlinesnotebookGeneralisation biasnotebookMisrepresentationnotebookNegative aspectsnotebookArchiveexecuted notebooks
One parameterised template, four independent category runs in parallel, and an executed-notebook archive that captures every cell’s state.
  1. 01

    Papermill Orchestrator

    Top-level script that resolves daily parameters, selects execution mode, and dispatches notebook runs.

  2. 02

    Parameterised Notebook Templates

    Four analyst-maintained Jupyter notebooks — one per analysis category — with Papermill-tagged parameter cells.

  3. 03

    Sequential Execution Mode

    Runs notebooks in defined order for dependency-aware pipelines or constrained execution environments.

  4. 04

    Parallel Execution Mode

    multiprocessing.Pool distributes independent category notebooks across CPU cores for faster daily turnaround.

  5. 05

    Output Notebook Archive

    Each executed notebook is saved with a timestamp, capturing all cell outputs as a reproducible execution record.

Stack

MLOps
PapermillJupyter
Backend
Python multiprocessing
Data
Pandas

03 Engineering decisions

The decision that made it production-grade.

Each decision opens with the business problem, contrasts the common approach with what I shipped, then walks through the real code — the highlighted lines follow the step you are reading.

  1. 01Automated Daily Reporting Engine

Decision 01 · MLOps · Notebook Automation

Automated Daily Reporting Engine

In plain termsThis is the automated report factory — it runs the full analysis pipeline across all media categories on a schedule, producing consistent, reproducible reports without any manual intervention from analysts.

The problem

Converting notebooks to scripts for production loses the cell-by-cell state that makes failures debuggable.

The common approach — nbconvert to script, then execute — discards intermediate cell outputs. When an analysis fails at cell 18 of 40, there's nothing to inspect. Papermill keeps the output notebook as an execution record with all intermediate state preserved.

Before · Common approach

jupyter nbconvert --execute discards cell outputs. Sequential loops block on failures.

✗ Failed analysis produces no intermediate state. One failing notebook blocks the rest in a sequential loop.

After · This implementation

Papermill injects parameters at the tagged cell and writes a full output notebook. multiprocessing.Pool runs independent categories in parallel.

✓ Output notebooks capture all intermediate state. Parallel execution means one failure doesn't block others.

How it worksPapermill — Parameterised Notebook Execution
  1. 01Build params dict (date, category, paths)Injected at tagged cell — template notebook unchanged
  2. 02pm.execute_notebook() → timestamped outputOutput notebook preserves all intermediate cell states
  3. 03Dispatch all categories via Pool.starmap()Each notebook process is independent — failures are isolated
  4. 04Archive output notebooks as audit recordsEvery run is reproducible and inspectable at the cell level

✓ Cell-by-cell failure state preserved · parallel-safe · reproducible

Code walkthrough — 3 steps · scroll or click

media-analysis/pipeline_runner.py
"""
Parameterised notebook pipeline runner using Papermill.

WHAT IT DEMONSTRATES:
  How to orchestrate daily automated analysis by treating Jupyter notebooks
  as parameterised, reproducible execution units. Each analysis category
  runs the same template notebook with a different parameter set.

WHY IT'S INTERESTING:
  Papermill bridges the gap between exploratory Jupyter analysis and
  production pipelines. The template approach means data scientists can
  iterate on notebooks locally, and the same file runs in production
  with injected parameters — no code duplication, full reproducibility,
  and output notebooks serve as execution audit logs.

NOVELTY:
  The common alternative — converting notebooks to Python scripts for
  production — loses the cell-by-cell execution state that makes debugging
  failures tractable. Papermill's output notebooks preserve intermediate
  cell outputs, making it straightforward to identify which analysis step
  failed and why, without adding explicit checkpointing code. The dual
  execution mode (sequential for debugging, multiprocessing.Pool for daily
  production runs) is surfaced via a single parameter rather than two code
  paths, preventing the classic problem where the "fast path" and "debug path"
  diverge over time. Category isolation means one failing analysis doesn't
  block the others — each notebook process is fully independent.
"""

from __future__ import annotations

import os
import multiprocessing
from datetime import datetime
from pathlib import Path
from time import sleep
from typing import Any

import papermill as pm


# ── Single-notebook execution ──────────────────────────────────────────────

def run_notebook(
    template: str,
    params: dict[str, Any],
    output_filename: str,
    template_dir: str,
    output_dir: str,
    run_id: str,
    runner_id: str,
    analysis_category: str,
) -> str:
    """
    Execute a parameterised Jupyter notebook via Papermill.

    Args:
        template:          Filename of the template notebook.
        params:            Analysis-specific parameters to inject.
        output_filename:   Filename for the executed output notebook.
        template_dir:      Directory containing template notebooks.
        output_dir:        Directory to write executed notebooks.
        run_id:            Unique identifier for this pipeline run.
        runner_id:         Worker ID (for parallel execution logging).
        analysis_category: Category label injected into the notebook.

    Returns:
        Absolute path of the executed output notebook.
    """
    input_path = os.path.join(template_dir, template)
    output_path = os.path.join(output_dir, output_filename)

    # Inject tracking IDs so every output notebook knows its provenance
    params["run_id"] = run_id
    params["runner_id"] = runner_id
    params["analysis_category"] = analysis_category

    print(f"  [PID {os.getpid()}] Running: {output_filename}")

    pm.execute_notebook(
        input_path=input_path,
        output_path=output_path,
        parameters=params,
        progress_bar=False,
        cwd=template_dir,     # ensures relative imports inside notebook work
    )
    return output_path


# ── Parallel pipeline orchestration ───────────────────────────────────────

def run_pipeline_parallel(
    categories: list[dict],
    template_dir: str,
    output_dir: str,
    run_id: str,
    workers: int = 4,
) -> list[str]:
    """
    Run multiple analysis categories in parallel via multiprocessing.Pool.

    Each category is an independent analysis — no data dependencies between
    them — making this an embarrassingly parallel workload.

    Args:
        categories: List of {"name": str, "template": str, "params": dict}
        template_dir: Shared directory of template notebooks.
        output_dir:   Shared output directory.
        run_id:       Run identifier (same for all categories this run).
        workers:      Process pool size.

    Returns:
        List of output notebook paths.
    """
    timestamp = datetime.now().strftime("%Y%m%d_%H%M%S")
    tasks = []
    for idx, cat in enumerate(categories):
        output_name = f"{cat['name']}_{timestamp}.ipynb"
        tasks.append((
            cat["template"],
            cat.get("params", {}),
            output_name,
            template_dir,
            output_dir,
            run_id,
            f"worker_{idx}",
            cat["name"],
        ))

    with multiprocessing.Pool(processes=min(workers, len(tasks))) as pool:
        results = pool.starmap(run_notebook, tasks)

    return results


# ── Example usage ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
#
# categories = [
#     {"name": "headlines",       "template": "headlines.ipynb",       "params": {"date": "2025-01-15"}},
#     {"name": "generalisation",  "template": "generalisation.ipynb",  "params": {"date": "2025-01-15"}},
#     {"name": "misrepresentation","template": "misrepresentation.ipynb","params": {"date": "2025-01-15"}},
#     {"name": "negative_aspects", "template": "negative_aspects.ipynb", "params": {"date": "2025-01-15"}},
# ]
# outputs = run_pipeline_parallel(categories, template_dir="templates/", output_dir="output/", run_id="run_001")
import subprocess

def run_analysis(notebook, date):
    # nbconvert discards intermediate cell outputs
    subprocess.run([
        "jupyter", "nbconvert", "--to", "script",
        "--execute", notebook
    ])  # no output notebook saved

def run_all(notebooks, date):
    for nb in notebooks:   # sequential only
        run_analysis(nb, date)
    # one failure stalls all remaining notebooks

The Impact

4categories in parallelPool distributes independent notebooks across CPU cores
100%execution state preservedOutput notebooks capture all intermediate cell outputs
0code duplicationOne template notebook, different params per daily run

Papermill's parameter injection and output notebook pattern eliminates both the state-loss problem of nbconvert and the code-duplication problem of per-category scripts. multiprocessing.Pool turns a sequential daily job into a parallel one with zero logic changes.

04 Production hardening

What breaks, why, and what keeps it fixed.

The failure modes this system had to survive — each with its root cause, the fix that shipped, and the guardrail that stops it coming back.

  1. 01
    Failure modeFailure mode · Automated Daily Reporting Engine

    Failed analysis produces no intermediate state. One failing notebook blocks the rest in a sequential loop.

    Root cause

    Converting notebooks to scripts for production loses the cell-by-cell state that makes failures debuggable.

    Fix shipped

    Papermill injects parameters at the tagged cell and writes a full output notebook. multiprocessing.Pool runs independent categories in parallel.

    Guardrail

    Cell-by-cell failure state preserved · parallel-safe · reproducible

05 Outcomes

What changed for the business.

  1. 01

    Replaced daily manual notebook runs with automated reporting

  2. 02

    Improved reproducibility of outputs

  3. 03

    Reduced analyst overhead for routine analysis tasks.

Key benefits

  • Daily zero-touch reporting eliminates manual analyst effort across four content categories
  • Reproducible outputs — any historical analysis run can be replayed from its parameter set
  • Parallel execution reduces total pipeline wall-clock time proportional to available CPU cores
  • Analyst-editable notebook templates let domain experts modify analysis logic without engineering support
  • Executed notebooks serve as self-contained audit logs capturing all intermediate computation

Metrics are from project-specific observation windows. Codebases are private; excerpts are curated for illustration.

Want the full story behind Automated Media Analysis Pipeline?

I’m happy to walk through the architecture, trade-offs and numbers in an interview.