I am trying to input matrix data into the brm() function to run a signal regression. brm is from the brms package, which provides an interface to fit Bayesian models using Stan. Signal regression is when you model one covariate using another within the bigger model, and you use the by parameter like this: model <- brm(response ~ s(matrix1, by = matrix2) + ..., data = Data). The problem is, I cannot input my matrices using the 'data' parameter because it only allows one data.frame object to be inputted.
Here are my code and the errors I obtained from trying to get around that constraint...
First off, my reproducible code leading up to the model-building:
library(brms)
#100 rows, 4 columns. Each cell contains a number between 1 and 10
Data <- data.frame(runif(100,1,10),runif(100,1,10),runif(100,1,10),runif(100,1,10))
#Assign names to the columns
names(Data) <- c("d0_10","d0_100","d0_1000","d0_10000")
Data$Density <- as.matrix(Data)%*%c(-1,10,5,1)
#the coefficients we are modelling
d <- c(-1,10,5,1)
#Made a matrix with 4 columns with values 10, 100, 1000, 10000 which are evaluation points. Rows are repeats of the same column numbers
Bins <- 10^matrix(rep(1:4,times = dim(Data)[1]),ncol = 4,byrow =T)
Bins
As mentioned above, since 'data' only allows one data.frame object to be inputted, I've tried other ways of inputting my matrix data. These methods include:
1) making the matrix within the brm() function using as.matrix()
signalregression.brms <- brm(Density ~ s(Bins,by=as.matrix(Data[,c(c("d0_10","d0_100","d0_1000","d0_10000"))])),data = Data)
#Error in is(sexpr, "try-error") :
argument "sexpr" is missing, with no default
2) making the matrix outside the formula, storing it in a variable, then calling that variable inside the brm() function
Donuts <- as.matrix(Data[,c(c("d0_10","d0_100","d0_1000","d0_10000"))])
signalregression.brms <- brm(Density ~ s(Bins,by=Donuts),data = Data)
#Error: The following variables can neither be found in 'data' nor in 'data2':
'Bins', 'Donuts'
3) inputting a list containing the matrix using the 'data2' parameter
signalregression.brms <- brm(Density ~ s(Bins,by=donuts),data = Data,data2=list(Bins = 10^matrix(rep(1:4,times = dim(Data)[1]),ncol = 4,byrow =T),donuts=as.matrix(Data[,c(c("d0_10","d0_100","d0_1000","d0_10000"))])))
#Error in names(dat) <- object$term :
'names' attribute [1] must be the same length as the vector [0]
None of the above worked; each had their own errors and it was difficult troubleshooting them because I couldn't find answers or examples online that were of a similar nature in the context of brms.
I was able to use the above techniques just fine for gam(), in the mgcv package - you don't have to define a data.frame using 'data', you can call on variables defined outside of the gam() formula, and you can make matrices inside the gam() function itself. See below:
library(mgcv)
signalregression2 <- gam(Data$Density ~ s(Bins,by = as.matrix(Data[,c("d0_10","d0_100","d0_1000","d0_10000")]),k=3))
#Works!
It seems like brms is less flexible... :(
My question: does anyone have any suggestions on how to make my brm() function run?
Thank you very much!
My understanding of signal regression is limited enough that I'm not convinced this is correct, but I think it's at least a step in the right direction. The problem seems to be that brm() expects everything in its formula to be a column in data. So we can get the model to compile by ensuring all the things we want are present in data:
library(tidyverse)
signalregression.brms = brm(Density ~
s(cbind(d0_10_bin, d0_100_bin, d0_1000_bin, d0_10000_bin),
by = cbind(d0_10, d0_100, d0_1000, d0_10000),
k = 3),
data = Data %>%
mutate(d0_10_bin = 10,
d0_100_bin = 100,
d0_1000_bin = 1000,
d0_10000_bin = 10000))
Writing out each column by hand is a little annoying; I'm sure there are more general solutions.
For reference, here are my installed package versions:
map_chr(unname(unlist(pacman::p_depends(brms)[c("Depends", "Imports")])), ~ paste(., ": ", pacman::p_version(.), sep = ""))
[1] "Rcpp: 1.0.6" "methods: 4.0.3" "rstan: 2.21.2" "ggplot2: 3.3.3"
[5] "loo: 2.4.1" "Matrix: 1.2.18" "mgcv: 1.8.33" "rstantools: 2.1.1"
[9] "bayesplot: 1.8.0" "shinystan: 2.5.0" "projpred: 2.0.2" "bridgesampling: 1.1.2"
[13] "glue: 1.4.2" "future: 1.21.0" "matrixStats: 0.58.0" "nleqslv: 3.3.2"
[17] "nlme: 3.1.149" "coda: 0.19.4" "abind: 1.4.5" "stats: 4.0.3"
[21] "utils: 4.0.3" "parallel: 4.0.3" "grDevices: 4.0.3" "backports: 1.2.1"
Related
I'm trying to get a summary plot using fastshap explain function as in the code below.
p_function_G<- function(object, newdata)
caret::predict.train(object,
newdata =
newdata,
type = "prob")[,"AntiSocial"] # select G class
# Calculate the Shapley values
#
# boostFit: is a caret model using catboost algorithm
# trainset: is the dataset used for bulding the caret model.
# The dataset contains 4 categories W,G,R,GM
# corresponding to 4 diferent animal behaviors
library(caret)
shap_values_G <- fastshap::explain(xgb_fit,
X = game_train,
pred_wrapper =
p_function_G,
nsim = 50,
newdata= game_train[which(game_test=="AntiSocial"),])
)
However I'm getting error
Error in 'stop_vctrs()':
can't combine latitude and gender <factor<919a3>>
What's the way out?
I see that you are adapting code from Julia Silge's Predict ratings for board games Tutorial. The original code used SHAPforxgboost for generating SHAP values, but you're using the fastshap package.
Because Shapley explanations are only recently starting to gain traction, there aren't very many standard data formats. fastshap does not like tidyverse tibbles, it only takes matrices or matrix-likes.
The error occurs because, by default, fastshap attempts to convert the tibble to a matrix. But this fails, because matrices can only have one type (f.x. either double or factor, not both).
I also ran into a similar issue and found that you can solve this by passing the X parameter as a data.frame. I don't have access to your full code but you could you try replacing the shap_values_G code-block as so:
shap_values_G <- fastshap::explain(xgb_fit,
X = game_train,
pred_wrapper =
p_function_G,
nsim = 50,
newdata= as.data.frame(game_train[which(game_test=="AntiSocial"),]))
)
Wrap newdata with as.data.frame. This converts the tibble to a dataframe and so shouldn't upset fastshap.
I am trying to solve the digit Recognizer competition in Kaggle and I run in to this error.
I loaded the training data and adjusted the values of it by dividing it with the maximum pixel value which is 255. After that, I am trying to build my model.
Here Goes my code,
Given_Training_data <- get(load("Given_Training_data.RData"))
Given_Testing_data <- get(load("Given_Testing_data.RData"))
Maximum_Pixel_value = max(Given_Training_data)
Tot_Col_Train_data = ncol(Given_Training_data)
training_data_adjusted <- Given_Training_data[, 2:ncol(Given_Training_data)]/Maximum_Pixel_value
testing_data_adjusted <- Given_Testing_data[, 2:ncol(Given_Testing_data)]/Maximum_Pixel_value
label_training_data <- Given_Training_data$label
final_training_data <- cbind(label_training_data, training_data_adjusted)
smp_size <- floor(0.75 * nrow(final_training_data))
set.seed(100)
training_ind <- sample(seq_len(nrow(final_training_data)), size = smp_size)
training_data1 <- final_training_data[training_ind, ]
train_no_label1 <- as.data.frame(training_data1[,-1])
train_label1 <-as.data.frame(training_data1[,1])
svm_model1 <- svm(train_label1,train_no_label1) #This line is throwing an error
Error : Error in predict.svm(ret, xhold, decision.values = TRUE) : Model is empty!
Please Kindly share your thoughts. I am not looking for an answer but rather some idea that guides me in the right direction as I am in a learning phase.
Thanks.
Update to the question :
trainlabel1 <- train_label1[sapply(train_label1, function(x) !is.factor(x) | length(unique(x))>1 )]
trainnolabel1 <- train_no_label1[sapply(train_no_label1, function(x) !is.factor(x) | length(unique(x))>1 )]
svm_model2 <- svm(trainlabel1,trainnolabel1,scale = F)
It didn't help either.
Read the manual (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/e1071/e1071.pdf):
svm(x, y = NULL, scale = TRUE, type = NULL, ...)
...
Arguments:
...
x a data matrix, a vector, or a sparse matrix (object of class
Matrix provided by the Matrix package, or of class matrix.csr
provided by the SparseM package,
or of class simple_triplet_matrix provided by the slam package).
y a response vector with one label for each row/component of x.
Can be either a factor (for classification tasks) or a numeric vector
(for regression).
Therefore, the mains problems are that your call to svm is switching the data matrix and the response vector, and that you are passing the response vector as integer, resulting in a regression model. Furthermore, you are also passing the response vector as a single-column data-frame, which is not exactly how you are supposed to do it. Hence, if you change the call to:
svm_model1 <- svm(train_no_label1, as.factor(train_label1[, 1]))
it will work as expected. Note that training will take some minutes to run.
You may also want to remove features that are constant (where the values in the respective column of the training data matrix are all identical) in the training data, since these will not influence the classification.
I don't think you need to scale it manually since svm itself will do it unlike most neural network package.
You can also use the formula version of svm instead of the matrix and vectors which is
svm(result~.,data = your_training_set)
in your case, I guess you want to make sure the result to be used as factor,because you want a label like 1,2,3 not 1.5467 which is a regression
I can debug it if you can share the data:Given_Training_data.RData
I am confused as to why the two pieces of code are returning different results.
In one the only difference between the loops is the use of Wage$age.cut1 vs. age.cut1. What is the significance of the difference?
DATA: ISLR package, Wage data
cv.err <- rep(NA, 10)
for (i in 2:10){
Wage$age.cut1 = cut(Wage$age, i)
fit = glm(wage~age.cut1, data = Wage)
cv.err[i] = cv.glm(Wage, fit, K = 10)$delta[2]
}
> cv.err
[1] NA 1733.646 1681.587 1636.521 1632.931 1623.112 1611.965 1600.903 1609.973
[10] 1607.234 # these are the expected results
cv.err <- rep(NA, 10)
for (i in 2:10){
age.cut1 = cut(Wage$age, i)
fit = glm(wage~age.cut1, data = Wage)
cv.err[i] = cv.glm(Wage, fit, K = 10)$delta[2]
}
> cv.err
[1] NA 1603.255 1608.617 1602.296 1606.265 1606.139 1602.448 1606.063 1605.100
[10] 1606.986
Yes, the difference of those two make a great difference in your loop logic. In first loop, age.cut1 is a column in Wage dataframe evidenced by the $ qualifier and is used in the glm formula. In second loop, age.cut1 is a standalone, separate named vector and is unused in the glm formula. Whenever a formula is used, the columns derive from the object referenced in data argument.
Unfamiliar with listed packages and data structures, most likely age.cut1 column does exist in Wage data frame prior to looping (since no error occurred in its reference in second loop's glm call). However, it is only updated in first loop with cut(Wage$age, i). Though a similar named object is assigned in second loop, the original column data remains untouched in glm.
I have two R objects as below.
matrix "datamatrix" - 200 rows and 494 columns: these are my x variables
dataframe Y. Y$V1 is my Y variable. I have converted column V1 to a factor I am building a classification model.
I want to build a neural network and I ran below command.
model <- train(Y$V1 ~ datamatrix, method='nnet', linout=TRUE, trace = FALSE,
#Grid of tuning parameters to try:
tuneGrid=expand.grid(.size=c(1,5,10),.decay=c(0,0.001,0.1)))
I got an error - " argument "data" is missing, with no default"
Is there a way for caret package to understand that I have my X variables in one R object and Y variable in other? I dont want to combined two data objects and then write a formula as the formula will be too long
Y~x1+x2+x3.................x199+x200....x493+x494
The argument "data" is missing error is addressed by adding a data = datamatrix argument to the train call. The way I would do it would be something like:
datafr <- as.data.frame(datamatrix)
# V1 is the first column name if dimnames aren't specified
datafr$V1 <- as.factor(datafr$V1)
model <- train(V1 ~ ., data = datafr, method='nnet',
linout=TRUE, trace = FALSE,
tuneGrid=expand.grid(.size=c(1,5,10),.decay=c(0,0.001,0.1)))
Now you don't have to pull your response variable out separately.
The . identifier allows inclusion of all variables from datafr (see here for details).
I'm fairly new to using the caret library and it's causing me some problems. Any
help/advice would be appreciated. My situations are as follows:
I'm trying to run a general linear model on some data and, when I run it
through the confusionMatrix, I get 'the data and reference factors must have
the same number of levels'. I know what this error means (I've run into it before), but I've double and triple checked my data manipulation and it all looks correct (I'm using the right variables in the right places), so I'm not sure why the two values in the confusionMatrix are disagreeing. I've run almost the exact same code for a different variable and it works fine.
I went through every variable and everything was balanced until I got to the
confusionMatrix predict. I discovered this by doing the following:
a <- table(testing2$hold1yes0no)
a[1]+a[2]
1543
b <- table(predict(modelFit,trainTR2))
dim(b)
[1] 1538
Those two values shouldn't disagree. Where are the missing 5 rows?
My code is below:
set.seed(2382)
inTrain2 <- createDataPartition(y=HOLD$hold1yes0no, p = 0.6, list = FALSE)
training2 <- HOLD[inTrain2,]
testing2 <- HOLD[-inTrain2,]
preProc2 <- preProcess(training2[-c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)], method="BoxCox")
trainPC2 <- predict(preProc2, training2[-c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)])
trainTR2 <- predict(preProc2, testing2[-c(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9)])
modelFit <- train(training2$hold1yes0no ~ ., method ="glm", data = trainPC2)
confusionMatrix(testing2$hold1yes0no, predict(modelFit,trainTR2))
I'm not sure as I don't know your data structure, but I wonder if this is due to the way you set up your modelFit, using the formula method. In this case, you are specifying y = training2$hold1yes0no and x = everything else. Perhaps you should try:
modelFit <- train(trainPC2, training2$hold1yes0no, method="glm")
Which specifies y = training2$hold1yes0no and x = trainPC2.