I use smooth.spline() on two large numeric vectors, x and y. I now want to visualize it, showing confidence intervals (or standard errors).
Ideally, I would just use geom_smooth(method="spline"), but that doesn't exist. So I tried method = "loess", which is similar, but than it runs out of memory (unless I set se=F) and I already set it to the maximum capacity.
I than used base R function smooth.spline(), but that doesn't calculate standard errors or confidence intervals. I tried using the function predict(model, se = T), but it does not produce standard errors for smooth.spline models.
What can I do? please help, I am trying for days now, and even GPT couldn't do it
Related
I have some time to event data that I need to generate around 200 shape/scale parameters for subgroups for a simulation model. I have analysed the data, and it best follows a weibull distribution.
Normally, I would use the fitdistrplus package and fitdist(x, "weibull") to do so, however this data has been matched using kernel matching and I have a variable of weighting values called km and so needs to incorporate a weight, which isn't something fitdist can do as far as I can tell.
With my gamma distributed data instead of using fitdist I did the calculation manually using the wtd.mean and wtd.var functions from the hsmisc package, which worked well. However, finding a similar formula for the weibull is eluding me.
I've been testing a few options and comparing them against the fitdist results:
test_data <- rweibull(100, 0.676, 946)
fitweibull <- fitdist(test_data, "weibull", method = "mle", lower = c(0,0))
fitweibull$estimate
shape scale
0.6981165 935.0907482
I first tested this: The Weibull distribution in R (ExtDist)
library(bbmle)
m1 <- mle2(y~dweibull(shape=exp(lshape),scale=exp(lscale)),
data=data.frame(y=test_data),
start=list(lshape=0,lscale=0))
which gave me lshape = -0.3919991 and lscale = 6.852033
The other thing I've tried is eweibull from the EnvStats package.
eweibull <- eweibull(test_data)
eweibull$parameters
shape scale
0.698091 935.239277
However, while these are giving results, I still don't think I can fit my data with the weights into any of these.
Edit: I have also tried the similarly named eWeibull from the ExtDist package (which I'm not 100% sure still works, but does have a weibull function that takes a weight!). I get a lot of error messages about the inputs being non-computable (NA or infinite). If I do it with map, so map(test_data, test_km, eWeibull) I get [[NULL] for all 100 values. If I try it just with test_data, I get a long string of errors associated with optimx.
I have also tried fitDistr from propagate which gives errors that weights should be a specific length. For example, if both are set to be 100, I get an error that weights should be length 94. If I set it to 94, it tells me it has to be length of 132.
I need to be able to pass either a set of pre-weighted mean/var/sd etc data into the calculation, or have a function that can take data and weights and use them both in the calculation.
After much trial and error, I edited the eweibull function from the EnvStats package to instead of using mean(x) and sd(x), to instead use wtd.mean(x,w) and sqrt(wtd.var(x, w)). This now runs and outputs weighted values.
So I have this discrete set of data my_dat that I am trying to fit a curve over to be able to generate random variables based on my_dat. I had great success using fitdistrplus on continuous data but have many errors when attempting to use it for discrete data.
Table settings:
library(fitdistrplus)
my_dat <- c(2,5,3,3,3,1,1,2,4,6,
3,2,2,8,3,4,3,3,4,4,
2,1,5,3,1,2,2,4,3,4,
2,4,1,6,2,3,2,1,2,4,
5,1,2,3,2)
I take a look at the histogram of the data first:
hist(my_dat)
Since the data's discrete, I decide to try a binomial distribution or the negative binomial distribution to fit and this is where I run into trouble: Here I try to define each:
fitNB3 <- fitdist(my_dat, discrete = T, distr = "nbinom" ) #NaNs Produced
fitB3 <- fitdist(my_dat, discrete = T, distr = "binom")
I receive two errors:
fitNB3 seems to run but notes that "NaNs Produced" - can anyone let me
know why this is the case?
fitB3 doesn't run at all and provides me with the error: "Error in start.arg.default(data10, distr = distname) : Unknown starting values for distribution binom." - can anyone point out why this won't work here? I am unclear about providing a starting number given that the data is discrete (I attempted to use start = 1 in the fitdist function but I received another error: "Error in fitdist(my_dat, discrete = T, distr = "binom", start = 1) : the function mle failed to estimate the parameters, with the error code 100"
I've been spinning my wheels for a while on this but I would be take any feedback regarding these errors.
Don't use hist on discrete data, because it doesn't do what you think it's doing.
Compare plot(table(my_dat)) with hist(my_dat)... and then ponder how many wrong impressions you've gotten doing this before. If you must use hist, make sure you specify the breaks, don't rely on defaults designed for continuous variables.
hist(my_dat)
lines(table(my_dat),col=4,lwd=6,lend=1)
Neither of your models can be suitable as both these distributions start from 0, not 1, and with the size of values you have, p(0) will not be ignorably small.
I don't get any errors fitting the negative binomial when I run your code.
The issue you had with fitting the binomial is you need to supply starting values for the parameters, which are called size (n) and prob (p), so
you'd need to say something like:
fitdist(my_dat, distr = "binom", start=list(size=15, prob=0.2))
However, you will then get a new problem! The optimizer assumes that the parameters are continuous and will fail on size.
On the other hand this is probably a good thing because with unknown n MLE is not well behaved, particularly when p is small.
Typically, with the binomial it would be expected that you know n. In that case, estimation of p could be done as follows:
fitdist(my_dat, distr = "binom", fix.arg=list(size=20), start=list(prob=0.15))
However, with fixed n, maximum likelihood estimation is straightforward in any case -- you don't need an optimizer for that.
If you really don't know n, there are a number of better-behaved estimators than the MLE to be found, but that's outside the scope of this question.
I have an issue with Random Forest with the Importance / varImPlot function, I hope someone could help me with?
I tried to code versions but I am confused about the (different) results:
1.)
rffit = randomForest(price~.,data=train,mtry=x,ntree=500)
rfvalpred = predict(rffit,newdata=test)
varImpPlot(rffit)
importance(rffit)
Shows the plot and the data of “importance”, however only “IncNodePurity”. And the data is different the plot and the data, I tried with "Scale" but did not work.
2.)
rf.analyzed_data = randomForest(price~.,data=train,mtry=x,ntree=500,importance=TRUE)
yhat.rf = predict(rf.analyzed_data,newdata=test)
varImpPlot(rf.analyzed_data)
importance(rf.analyzed_data)
In that case it does not produce any plot anymore and the importance data is showing “%IncMSE” and “IncNodePurity” data but the “IncNodePurity” data is different to first code?
Questions:
1.) Any idea why data is different for “IncNodePurity”?
2.) Any idea why no “%IncMSE” is shown in the first version?
3.) Why no plot is shown in the second version?
Many thanks!!
Ed
1) IncNodePurity is derived from the loss function, and you get that measure for free just by training the model. On the downside it is a more unstable estimate as results may vary from each model run. It is also more biased as it favors variables with many levels. I guess your found the differences are due to randomness.
2) VI, %IncMSE takes a little extra time to compute and is therefore optional. Roughly all values in data set needs to be shuffled and every OOB sample needs to be predicted once for every tree times for every variable. As the package randomForest is designed, you have to compute VI during training. importance must be set to TRUE. varImpPlot cannot plot it as it has not been computed.
3) Not sure. In this code example I see both plots at least.
library(randomForest)
#data
X = data.frame(replicate(6,rnorm(1000)))
y = with(X, X1^2 + sin(X2*pi) + X3*X4)
train = data.frame(y=y,X=X)
#training
rf1=randomForest(y~.,data=train,importance=F)
rf2=randomForest(y~.,data=train, importance=T)
#plotting importnace
varImpPlot(rf1) #plot only with IncNodePurity
varImpPlot(rf2) #bi-plot also with %IncMSE
So I've got a data set that I want to parameterise but it is not a Gaussian distribution so I can't parameterise it in terms of it's mean and standard deviation. I want to fit a distribution function with a set of parameters and extract the values of the parameters (eg. a and b) that give the best fit. I want to do this exactly the same as the
lm(y~f(x;a,b))
except that I don't have a y, I have a distribution of different x values.
Here's an example. If I assume that the data follows a Gumbel, double exponential, distribution
f(x;u,b) = 1/b exp-(z + exp-(z)) [where z = (x-u)/b]:
#library(QRM)
#library(ggplot2)
rg <- rGumbel(1000) #default parameters are 0 and 1 for u and b
#then plot it's distribution
qplot(rg)
#should give a nice skewed distribution
If I assume that I don't know the distribution parameters and I want to perform a best fit of the probability density function to the observed frequency data, how do I go about showing that the best fit is (in this test case), u = 0 and b = 1?
I don't want code that simply maps the function onto the plot graphically, although that would be a nice aside. I want a method that I can repeatedly use to extract variables from the function to compare to others. GGPlot / qplot was used as it quickly shows the distribution for anyone wanting to test the code. I prefer to use it but I can use other packages if they are easier.
Note: This seems to me like a really obvious thing to have been asked before but I can't find one that relates to histogram data (which again seems strange) so if there's another tutorial I'd really like to see it.
So I am currently trying to draw the confidence interval for a linear model. I found out I should use predict.lm() for this, but I have a few problems really understanding the function and I do not like using functions without knowing what's happening. I found several how-to's on this subject, but only with the corresponding R-code, no real explanation.
This is the function itself:
## S3 method for class 'lm'
predict(object, newdata, se.fit = FALSE, scale = NULL, df = Inf,
interval = c("none", "confidence", "prediction"),
level = 0.95, type = c("response", "terms"),
terms = NULL, na.action = na.pass,
pred.var = res.var/weights, weights = 1, ...)
Now, what I've trouble understanding:
1) newdata
An optional data frame in which to look for variables
with which to predict. If omitted, the fitted values are used.
Everyone seems to use newdata for this, but I cannot quite understand why. For calculating the confidence interval I obviously need the data which this interval is for (like the # of observations, mean of x etc), so cannot be what is meant by it. But then: What is does it mean?
2) interval
Type of interval calculation.
okay.. but what is "none" for?
3a) type
Type of prediction (response or model term).
3b) terms
If type="terms", which terms (default is all terms)
3a: Can I by that get the confidence interval for one specific variable in my model? And if so, what is 3b for then? If I can specify the term in 3a, it wouldn't make sense to do it in 3b again.. so I guess I'm wrong again, but I cannot figure out why.
I guess some of you might think: Why don't just try this out? And I would (even if it would maybe not solve everything here), but I right now don't know how to. As I do not now what the newdata is for, I don't know how to use it and if I try, I do not get the right confidence interval. Somehow it is very important how you choose that data, but I just don't understand!
EDIT: I want to add that my intention is to understand how predict.lm works. By that I mean I don't understand if it works the way I think it does. That is it calculates y-hat (predicted values) and than uses adds/subtracts for each the upr/lwr-bounds of the interval to calculate several datapoints(looking like a confidence-line then) ?? Then I would undestand why it is necessary to have the same lenght in the newdata as in the linear model.
Make up some data:
d <- data.frame(x=c(1,4,5,7),
y=c(0.8,4.2,4.7,8))
Fit the model:
lm1 <- lm(y~x,data=d)
Confidence and prediction intervals with the original x values:
p_conf1 <- predict(lm1,interval="confidence")
p_pred1 <- predict(lm1,interval="prediction")
Conf. and pred. intervals with new x values (extrapolation and more finely/evenly spaced than original data):
nd <- data.frame(x=seq(0,8,length=51))
p_conf2 <- predict(lm1,interval="confidence",newdata=nd)
p_pred2 <- predict(lm1,interval="prediction",newdata=nd)
Plotting everything together:
par(las=1,bty="l") ## cosmetics
plot(y~x,data=d,ylim=c(-5,12),xlim=c(0,8)) ## data
abline(lm1) ## fit
matlines(d$x,p_conf1[,c("lwr","upr")],col=2,lty=1,type="b",pch="+")
matlines(d$x,p_pred1[,c("lwr","upr")],col=2,lty=2,type="b",pch=1)
matlines(nd$x,p_conf2[,c("lwr","upr")],col=4,lty=1,type="b",pch="+")
matlines(nd$x,p_pred2[,c("lwr","upr")],col=4,lty=2,type="b",pch=1)
Using new data allows for extrapolation beyond the original data; also, if the original data are sparsely or unevenly spaced, the prediction intervals (which are not straight lines) may not be well approximated by linear interpolation between the original x values ...
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "confidence interval for one specific variable in my model"; if you want confidence intervals on a parameter, then you should use confint. If you want predictions for the changes based only on some of the parameters changing (ignoring the uncertainty due to the other parameters), then you do indeed want to use type="terms".
interval="none" (the default) just tells R not to bother computing any confidence or prediction intervals, and to return just the predicted values.