I'm having doubts during the hyperparameters tune step. I think I might be making some confusion.
I split my dataset into training (70%), validation (15%) and testing (15%). Below is the code used for regression with Random Forest.
1. Training
I perform the initial training with the dataset, as follows:
rf_model <- ranger(y ~.,
date = train ,
num.trees = 500,
mtry = 5,
min.node.size = 100,
importance = "impurity")
I get the R squared and the RMSE using the actual and predicted data from the training set.
pred_rf <- predict(rf_model,train)
pred_rf <- data.frame(pred = pred_rf, obs = train$y)
RMSE_rf <- RMSE(pred_rf$pred, pred_rf$obs)
R2_rf <- (color(pred_rf$pred, pred_rf$obs)) ^2
2. Parameter optimization
Using a parameter grid, the best model is chosen based on performance.
hyper_grid <- expand.grid(mtry = seq(3, 12, by = 4),
sample_size = c(0.5,1),
min.node.size = seq(20, 500, by = 100),
MSE = as.numeric(NA),
R2 = as.numeric(NA),
OOB_RMSE = as.numeric(NA)
)
And I perform the search for the best model according to the smallest OOB error, for example.
for (i in 1:nrow(hyper_grid)) {
model <- ranger(formula = y ~ .,
date = train,
num.trees = 500,
mtry = hyper_grid$mtry[i],
sample.fraction = hyper_grid$sample_size[i],
min.node.size = hyper_grid$min.node.size[i],
importance = "impurity",
replace = TRUE,
oob.error = TRUE,
verbose = TRUE
)
hyper_grid$OOB_RMSE[i] <- sqrt(model$prediction.error)
hyper_grid[i, "MSE"] <- model$prediction.error
hyper_grid[i, "R2"] <- model$r.squared
hyper_grid[i, "OOB_RMSE"] <- sqrt(model$prediction.error)
}
Choose the best performing model
x <- hyper_grid[which.min(hyper_grid$OOB_RMSE), ]
The final model:
rf_fit_model <- ranger(formula = y ~ .,
date = train,
num.trees = 100,
mtry = x$mtry,
sample.fraction = x$sample_size,
min.node.size = x$min.node.size,
oob.error = TRUE,
verbose = TRUE,
importance = "impurity"
)
Perform model prediction with validation data
rf_predict_val <- predict(rf_fit_model, validation)
rf_predict_val <- as.data.frame(rf_predict_val[1])
names(rf_predict_val) <- "pred"
rf_predict_val <- data.frame(pred = rf_predict_val, obs = validation$y)
RMSE_rf_fit <- RMSE rf_predict_val$pred, rf_predict_val$obs)
R2_rf_fit <- (cor(rf_predict_val$pred, rf_predict_val$obs)) ^ 2
Well, now I wonder if I should replicate the model evaluation with the test data.
The fact is that the validation data is being used only as a "test" and is not effectively helping to validate the model.
I've used cross validation in other methods, but I'd like to do it more manually. One of the reasons is that the CV via caret is very slow.
I'm in the right way?
Code using Caret, but very slow:
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv",
repeats = 10)
grid <- expand.grid(interaction.depth = seq(1, 7, by = 2),
n.trees = 1000,
shrinkage = c(0.01,0.1),
n.minobsinnode = 50)
gbmTune <- train(y ~ ., data = train,
method = "gbm",
tuneGrid = grid,
verbose = TRUE,
trControl = ctrl)
Related
I am trying to predict the times table training a neural network. However, I couldn't really get how preProcess argument works in train function in Caret.
In the docs, it says:
The preProcess class can be used for many operations on predictors, including centering and scaling.
When we set preProcess like below,
tt.cv <- train(product ~ .,
data = tt.train,
method = 'neuralnet',
tuneGrid = tune.grid,
trControl = train.control,
linear.output = TRUE,
algorithm = 'backprop',
preProcess = 'range',
learningrate = 0.01)
Does it mean that the train function preprocesses (normalizes) the training data passed, in this case tt.train?
After the training is done, when we are trying to predict, do we pass normalized inputs to the predict function or are inputs normalized in the function because we set the preProcess parameter?
# Do we do
predict(tt.cv, tt.test)
# or
predict(tt.cv, tt.normalized.test)
And from the quote above, it seems that when we use preProcess, outputs are not normalized this way in training, how do we go about normalizing outputs? Or do we just normalize the training data beforehand like below and then pass it to the train function?
preProc <- preProcess(tt, method = 'range')
tt.preProcessed <- predict(preProc, tt)
tt.preProcessed.train <- tt.preProcessed[indexes,]
tt.preProcessed.test <- tt.preProcessed[-indexes,]
The whole code:
library(caret)
library(neuralnet)
# Create the dataset
tt = data.frame(multiplier = rep(1:10, times = 10), multiplicand = rep(1:10, each = 10))
tt = cbind(tt, data.frame(product = tt$multiplier * tt$multiplicand))
# Splitting
indexes = createDataPartition(tt$product,
times = 1,
p = 0.7,
list = FALSE)
tt.train = tt[indexes,]
tt.test = tt[-indexes,]
# Pre-process
preProc <- preProcess(tt, method = c('center', 'scale'))
tt.preProcessed <- predict(preProc, tt)
tt.preProcessed.train <- tt.preProcessed[indexes,]
tt.preProcessed.test <- tt.preProcessed[-indexes,]
# Train
train.control <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv",
number = 10,
repeats = 3,
savePredictions = TRUE)
tune.grid <- expand.grid(layer1 = 8,
layer2 = 0,
layer3 = 0)
tt.cv <- train(product ~ .,
data = tt.train,
method = 'neuralnet',
tuneGrid = tune.grid,
trControl = train.control,
algorithm = 'backprop',
learningrate = 0.01,
stepmax = 100000,
preProcess = c('center', 'scale'),
lifesign = 'minimal',
threshold = 0.01)
I am trying to combine signals from different models using the example described here . I have different datasets which predicts the same output. However, when I combine the model output in caretList, and ensemble the signals, it gives an error
Error in check_bestpreds_resamples(modelLibrary) :
Component models do not have the same re-sampling strategies
Here is the reproducible example
library(caret)
library(caretEnsemble)
df1 <-
data.frame(x1 = rnorm(200),
x2 = rnorm(200),
y = as.factor(sample(c("Jack", "Jill"), 200, replace = T)))
df2 <-
data.frame(z1 = rnorm(400),
z2 = rnorm(400),
y = as.factor(sample(c("Jack", "Jill"), 400, replace = T)))
library(caret)
check_1 <- train( x = df1[,1:2],y = df1[,3],
method = "nnet",
tuneLength = 10,
trControl = trainControl(method = "cv",
classProbs = TRUE,
savePredictions = T))
check_2 <- train( x = df2[,1:2],y = df2[,3] ,
method = "nnet",
preProcess = c("center", "scale"),
tuneLength = 10,
trControl = trainControl(method = "cv",
classProbs = TRUE,
savePredictions = T))
combine <- c(check_1, check_2)
ens <- caretEnsemble(combine)
First of all, you are trying to combine 2 models trained on different training data sets. That is not going to work. All ensemble models will need to be based on the same training set. You will have different sets of resamples in each trained model. Hence your current error.
Also building your models without using caretList is dangerous because you will have a big change of getting different resample strategies. You can control that a bit better by using the index in trainControl (see vignette).
If you use 1 dataset you can use the following code:
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "cv",
number = 5,
classProbs = TRUE,
savePredictions = "final")
set.seed(1324)
# will generate the following warning:
# indexes not defined in trControl. Attempting to set them ourselves, so
# each model in the ensemble will have the same resampling indexes.
models <- caretList(x = df1[,1:2],
y = df1[,3] ,
trControl = ctrl,
tuneList = list(
check_1 = caretModelSpec(method = "nnet", tuneLength = 10),
check_2 = caretModelSpec(method = "nnet", tuneLength = 10, preProcess = c("center", "scale"))
))
ens <- caretEnsemble(models)
A glm ensemble of 2 base models: nnet, nnet
Ensemble results:
Generalized Linear Model
200 samples
2 predictor
2 classes: 'Jack', 'Jill'
No pre-processing
Resampling: Bootstrapped (25 reps)
Summary of sample sizes: 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, ...
Resampling results:
Accuracy Kappa
0.5249231 0.04164767
Also read this guide on different ensemble strategies.
I am using caret for modeling using "xgboost"
1- However, I get following error :
"Error: The tuning parameter grid should have columns nrounds,
max_depth, eta, gamma, colsample_bytree, min_child_weight, subsample"
The code:
library(caret)
library(doParallel)
library(dplyr)
library(pROC)
library(xgboost)
## Create train/test indexes
## preserve class indices
set.seed(42)
my_folds <- createFolds(train_churn$churn, k = 10)
# Compare class distribution
i <- my_folds$Fold1
table(train_churn$churn[i]) / length(i)
my_control <- trainControl(
summaryFunction = twoClassSummary,
classProbs = TRUE,
verboseIter = TRUE,
savePredictions = TRUE,
index = my_folds
)
my_grid <- expand.grid(nrounds = 500,
max_depth = 7,
eta = 0.1,
gammma = 1,
colsample_bytree = 1,
min_child_weight = 100,
subsample = 1)
set.seed(42)
model_xgb <- train(
class ~ ., data = train_churn,
metric = "ROC",
method = "xgbTree",
trControl = my_control,
tuneGrid = my_grid)
2- I also want to get a prediction made by averaging the predictions made by using the model fitted for each fold.
I know it's 'tad' bit late but, check your spelling of gamma in the grid of tuning parameters. You misspelled it as gammma (with triple m's).
I am trying to repeat the following lines of code:
x.mat <- as.matrix(train.df[,predictors])
y.class <- train.df$Response
cv.lasso.fit <- cv.glmnet(x = x.mat, y = y.class,
family = "binomial", alpha = 1, nfolds = 10)
... with the caret package, but it doesn't work:
trainControl <- trainControl(method = "cv",
number = 10,
# Compute Recall, Precision, F-Measure
summaryFunction = prSummary,
# prSummary needs calculated class probs
classProbs = T)
modelFit <- train(Response ~ . -Id, data = train.df,
method = "glmnet",
trControl = trainControl,
metric = "F", # Optimize by F-measure
alpha=1,
family="binomial")
The parameter "alpha" is not recognized, and "the model fit fails in every fold".
What am I doing wrong? Help would be much appreciated. Thanks.
Try to use tuneGrid. For example as follows:
tuneGrid=expand.grid(
.alpha=1,
.lambda=seq(0, 100, by = 0.1))
I am trying to do L2-regularized MLR on a data set using caret. Following is what I have done so far to achieve this:
r_squared <- function ( pred, actual){
mean_actual = mean (actual)
ss_e = sum ((pred - actual )^2)
ss_total = sum ((actual-mean_actual)^2 )
r_squared = 1 - (ss_e/ss_total)
}
df = as.data.frame(matrix(rnorm(10000, 10, 3), 1000))
colnames(df)[1] = "response"
set.seed(753)
inTraining <- createDataPartition(df[["response"]], p = .75, list = FALSE)
training <- df[inTraining,]
testing <- df[-inTraining,]
testing_response <- base::subset(testing,
select = c(paste ("response")))
gridsearch_for_lambda = data.frame (alpha = 0,
lambda = c (2^c(-15:15), 3^c(-15:15)))
regression_formula = as.formula (paste ("response", "~ ", " .", sep = " "))
train_control = trainControl (method="cv", number =10,
savePredictions =TRUE , allowParallel = FALSE )
model = train (regression_formula,
data = training,
trControl = train_control,
method = "glmnet",
tuneGrid =gridsearch_for_lambda,
preProcess = NULL
)
prediction = predict (model, newdata = testing)
testing_response[["predicted"]] = prediction
r_sq = round (r_squared(testing_response[["predicted"]],
testing_response[["response"]] ),3)
Here I am concerned about assurance that the model I am using for prediction is the best one (the optimal tuned lambda value).
P.S.: The data is sampled from random normal distribution, which is not giving a good R^2 value, but I want to get the idea correctly