I asked this question on RCommunity but haven't had anyone bite... so I'm here!
My current project involves me predicting whether some trees will survive given future climate change scenarios. Against better judgement (like using Maxent) I've decided to pursue this with a GLM, which requires presence and absence data. Everytime I generate my absence data (as I was only given presence data) using randomPoints from dismo, the resulting GLM model has different significant variables. I found a package called My.stepwise that has a My.stepwise.glm function (here: My.stepwise.glm: Stepwise Variable Selection Procedure for Generalized Linear... in My.stepwise: Stepwise Variable Selection Procedures for Regression Analysis) , and this goes through a forward/backward selection process to find the best variables and returns a model ready for you.
My problem is that I don't want to run My.stepwise.glm just once and use the model it spits out for me. I'd like to run it roughly 100 times with different pseudo-absence data and see which variables it returns, then take the most frequent variables and move forward with building my model using those. The issue is that the My.stepwise.glm function ends by 'print(summary(initial.model))' and I would like to be able to access the output similar to how step() returns a list, where you can then say 'step$coefficients' and have the function coefficients return as numerics. Can anyone help me with this?
Related
Need a hand analysing a model which I've built. I've built a model which analyses the effects of a number of variables on the chances that someone quits smoking. The output of the model is as follows:
I want to run anova on the model using Chi squared. The current way I am doing this is as follows, where each term is added sequentially:
As well as the effect of dependance, I also want to see the effect of each other variables in the same way so that they're able to be compared. At the moment, if I am to This means that I need to do one of the following:
Do anova, adding each term first sequentially. At the moment, the only way I can think to do this is to write a new model for each variable, adding this variable in first e.g.
Run anova, but add each term comparing the model with it to the model without it. How I do this I'm not sure though...
Any help or advice on how to achieve any of these would be great! Please ask for any more details!
I wanted to try xgboost global model from: https://business-science.github.io/modeltime/articles/modeling-panel-data.html
On smaller scale it works fine( Like wmt data-7 departments,7ids), but what if I would like to run it on 200 000 time series (ids)? It means step dummy creates another 200k columns & pc can't handle it.(pc can't handle even 14k ids)
I tried to remove step_dummy, but then I end up with xgboost forecasting same values for all ids.
My question is: How can I forecast 200k time series with global xgboost model and be able to forecast proper values for each one of the 200k ids.
Or is it necessary to put there step_ dummy in oder to create proper FC for all ids?
Ps:code should be the same as one in the link. Only in my dataset there are 50 monthly observations for each id.
For this model, the data must be given to xgboost in the format of a sparse matrix. That means that there should not be any non-numeric columns in the data prior to the conversion (with tidymodels does under the hood at the last minute).
The traditional method for converting a qualitative predictor into a quantitative one is to use dummy variables. There are a lot of other choices though. You can use an effect encoding, feature hashing, or others too.
I think that there is no proper answer to the question "how it would be possible to forecast 200k ts" properly. Global Models are the way to go here, but you need to experiment to find out, which models do not belong inside the global forecast model.
There will be a threshold, determined mostly by the length of the series, that you put inside the global model.
Keep in mind to use several global models, with different feature recipes.
If you want to avoid step_dummy function, use lightgbm from the bonsai package, which is considerably faster and more accurate.
I use the R-package adabag to fit boosted trees to a (large) data set (140 observations with 3 845 predictors).
I executed this method twice with same parameter and same data set and each time different values of the accuracy returned (I defined a simple function which gives accuracy given a data set).
Did I make a mistake or is usual that in each fitting different values of the accuracy return? Is this problem based on the fact that the data set is large?
function which returns accuracy given the predicted values and true test set values.
err<-function(pred_d, test_d)
{
abs.acc<-sum(pred_d==test_d)
rel.acc<-abs.acc/length(test_d)
v<-c(abs.acc,rel.acc)
return(v)
}
new Edit (9.1.2017):
important following question of the above context.
As far as I can see I do not use any "pseudo randomness objects" (such as generating random numbers etc.) in my code, because I essentially fit trees (using r-package rpart) and boosted trees (using r-package adabag) to a large data set. Can you explain me where "pseudo randomness" enters, when I execute my code?
Edit 1: Similar phenomenon happens also with tree (using the R-package rpart).
Edit 2: Similar phenomenon did not happen with trees (using rpart) on the data set iris.
There's no reason you should expect to get the same results if you didn't set your seed (with set.seed()).
It doesn't matter what seed you set if you're doing statistics rather than information security. You might run your model with several different seeds to check its sensitivity. You just have to set it before anything involving pseudo randomness. Most people set it at the beginning of their code.
This is ubiquitous in statistics; it affects all probabilistic models and processes across all languages.
Note that in the case of information security it's important to have a (pseudo) random seed which cannot be easily guessed by brute force attacks, because (in a nutshell) knowing a seed value used internally by a security program paves the way for it to be hacked. In science and statistics it's the opposite - you and anyone you share your code/research with should be aware of the seed to ensure reproducibility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_seed
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/what-are-random-seed-values
I hope I have come to the right forum. I'm an ecologist making species distribution models using the maxent (version 3.3.3, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~schapire/maxent/) function in R, through the dismo package. I have used the argument "replicates = 5" which tells maxent to do a 5-fold cross-validation. When running maxent from the maxent.jar file directly (the maxent software), an html file with statistics will be made, including the prediction maps. In R, an html file is also made, but the prediction maps have to be extracted afterwards, using the function "predict" in the dismo package in r. When I do this, I get 5 maps, due to the 5-fold cross-validation setting. However, (and this is the problem) I want only one output map, one "summary" prediction map. I assume this is possible, although I don't know how maxent computes it. The maxent tutorial (see link above) says that:
"...you may want to avoid eating up disk space by turning off the “write output grids” option, which will suppress writing of output grids for the replicate runs, so that you only get the summary statistics grids (avg, stderr etc.)."
A list of arguments that can be put into R is found in this forum https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/maxent/yRBlvZ1_9rQ.
I have tried to use the argument "outputgrids=FALSE" both in the maxent function itself, and in the predict function, but it doesn't work. I still get 5 maps, even though I don't get any errors in R.
So my question is: How do I get one "summary" prediction map instead of the five prediction maps that results from the cross-validation?
I hope someone can help me with this, I am really stuck and haven't found any answers anywhere on the internet. Not even a discussion about this. Hope my question is clear. This is the R-script that I use:
model1<-maxent(x=predvars, p=presence_points, a=target_group_absence, path="//home//...//model1", args=c("replicates=5", "outputgrids=FALSE"))
model1map<-predict(model1, predvars, filename="//home//...//model1map.tif", outputgrids=FALSE)
Best regards,
Kristin
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but based on the source code, it looks like Dismo's predict function does not have the ability to generate a summary map.
Nitty-gritty details for those who care: When you call maxent with replicates set to something greater than 1, the maxent function returns a MaxEntReplicates object, rather than a normal MaxEnt object. When predict receives a MaxEntReplicates object, it just iterates through all of the models that it contains and calls predict on them individually.
So, what next? Fortunately, all is not lost! The reason that Dismo doesn't have this functionality is that for most kinds of model-building, there isn't actually a valid way to average parameters across your cross-validation models. I don't want to go so far as to say that that's definitely the case for MaxEnt specifically, but I suspect it is. As such, cross-validation is usually used more as a way of checking that your model building methodology works for your data than as a way of building your model directly (see this question for further discussion of that point). After verifying via cross-validation that models built using a given procedure seem to be accurate for the phenomenon you're modelling, it's customary to build a final model using all of your data. In theory this new model should only be better than models trained on a subset of your data.
So basically, assuming your cross-validated models look reasonable, you can run MaxEnt again with only one replicate. Your final result will be a model accuracy estimate based on the cross-validation and a map based on the second run with all of your data lumped together. Depending on what exactly your question is, there might be other useful summary statistics from the cross-validation that you want to use, but those are all things you've already seen in the html output.
I may have found this a couple of years later. But you could do something like this:
xm <- maxent(predictors, pres_train) # basically the maxent model
px <- predict(predictors, xm, ext=ext, progress= '' ) #prediction
px2 <- predict(predictors, xm2, ext=ext, progress= '' ) #prediction #02
models <- stack(px,px2) # create a stack of prediction from all the models
final_map <- mean(px,px2) # Take a mean of all the prediction
plot(final_map) #plot the averaged map
xm1,xm2,.. would be the maxent models for each partitions in cross-validation, and px, px2,.. would be the predicted maps.
Note that the previous question flagged as a possible duplicate is not a duplicate because the previous question concerns backwards elimination and this question concerns forward entry.
I am currently performing a simulation where I want to show how stepwise regression is a biased estimator. In particular, previous researchers seem to have used one of the stepwise procedure in SPSS (or something identical to it). This involves using the p-value of the F value for r-square change to determine whether an additional variable should be added into the model. Thus, in order for my simulation results to have the most impact I need to replicate the SPSS stepwise regression procedure in R.
While R has a number of stepwise procedures (e.g., based on AIC), the ones that I have found are not the same as SPSS.
I have found this function by Paul Rubin. It seems to work, but the input and output of the function is a little strange. I've started tweaking it so that it (a) take a formula as input, (b) returns the best fitting model. The logic of the function is what I'm after.
I have also found this question on backwards stepwise regression. Note that backwards entry is different to forwards entry because backwards entry removes non-significant terms whereas forwards entry adds significant terms.
Nonetheless, it would be great if there was another function in an existing R package that could do what I want.
Is there an R function designed to perform forward entry stepwise regression using p-values of the F change?
Ideally, it could take a DV a set of IVs (either as named variables or as a formula) and a data.frame and would return the model that the stepwise regression selects as "best". For my purposes, there are no issues with inclusion of interaction terms.
The function two.ways.stepfor in the bioconductor package maSigPro contains a form of forward entry stepwise regression based on p-values.
However, the alpha in and alpha out can be specified and they must be the same. In SPSS the alpha in and alpha out can be different.
The package can be installed with:
source("http://bioconductor.org/biocLite.R")
biocLite("maSigPro")