I am working on finding out outliers using Mahalanobis distance in R. I have a dataset with 30 rows and 24 columns, which I feed into the mahanalobis function from stats package.I want to create find distance of each vector with rest of the rows. The results look good till I export the same input data and same code to another machine and rerun the code, which gives different results than the one seen on machine1. Is this expected behaviour ? or am I missing something. Please advice.
Code I used:
m_dist <- mahalanobis(data[, 2:25], colMeans(data[, 2:25]), cov(data[,2:25]),tol=1e-20)
Then I used boxplot on m_dist to identify the outliers. The result on first machine doesnt match the same on second. I even used set.seed(1007) on both machines just to check, but results are still different
I found another thread which discusses the result difference in python, but it doesnt help me in anyway...
Related
I'm pretty new to Tableau but have a lot of experience with R. Everytime I use SCRIPT_REAL to call an R function based on Tableau aggregates, I get back a number that seems to be like the closest fraction approximation. For example if raw R gives me .741312, Tableau will spit out .777778, and so on. Does anything have any experience with this issue?
I'm pretty sure this is an aggregation issue.
From the Tableau and R Integration post by Jonathan Drummey on their community site:
Using Every Row of Data - Disaggregated Data For accurate results
for the R functions, sometimes those R functions need to be called
with every row in the underlying data. There are two solutions to
this:
Disaggregate the measures using Analysis->Aggregate Measures->Off. This doesn’t actually cause the measures to stop their
aggregations, instead it tells Tableau to return every row in the data
without aggregating by the dimensions on the view (which gives the
wanted effect). Using this with R scripts can get the desired results,
but can cause problems for views that we want to have R work on the
non-aggregated data and then display the data with some level of
aggregation.
The second solution deals with this situation: Add a
dimension such as a unique Row ID to the view, and set the Compute
Using (addressing) of the R script to be along that dimension. If
we’re doing some sort of aggregation with R, then we might need to
reduce the number of values returned by filtering them out with
something like:
IF FIRST()==0 THEN SCRIPT_REAL('insert R script here') END
If we need to then perform additional aggregations on that
data, we can do so with table calculations with the appropriate
Compute Usings that take into account the increased level of detail in
the view.
I have this script which does a simple PCA analysis on number of variables and at the end attaches two coordinates and two other columns(presence, NZ_Field) to the output file. I have done this many times before but now its giving me this error:
I understand that it means there are negative eigenvalues. I looked at similar posts which suggest to use na.omit but it didn't work.
I have uploaded the "biodata.Rdata" file here:
covariance matrix is not non-negative definite
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1ex2z72lilxe16l/biodata.rdata?dl=0
I am pretty sure it is not because of missing values in data because I have used the same data with different "presence" and "NZ_Field" column.
Any help is highly appreciated.
load("biodata.rdata")
#save data separately
coords=biodata[,1:2]
biovars=biodata[,3:21]
presence=biodata[,22]
NZ_Field=biodata[,23]
#Do PCA
bpc=princomp(biovars ,cor=TRUE)
#re-attach data with auxiliary data..coordinates, presence and NZ location data
PCresults=cbind(coords, bpc$scores[,1:3], presence, NZ_Field)
write.table(PCresults,file= "hlb_pca_all.txt", sep= ",",row.names=FALSE)
This does appear to be an issue with missing data so there are a few ways to deal with it. One way is to manually do listwise deletion on the data before running the PCA which in your case would be:
biovars<-biovars[complete.cases(biovars),]
The other option is to use another package, specifically psych seems to work well here and you can use principal(biovars), and while the output is bit different it does work using pairwise deletion, so basically it comes down to whether or not you want to use pairwise or listwise deletion. Thanks!
pvclust is great for cluster analysis in R. However, when running it as part of a batch operation, it is annoying to get different results for the same data. Obviously, there are many "correct" clusterings of the same data, and it seems that pvclust uses some randomness to determine the clusters of a specific run. But is there any way to get deterministic results?
I want to be able to present a minimal, repeatable analysis package: the data plus an R script, and a separate written document that contains my interpretations of the clustering. It is then possible for others to add to the analysis, e.g. by changing the aesthetic appearance of plots. Now, the interpretations will always be out of sync with what someone else gets when they run the script containing pvclust.
Not only for cluster analysis, but when there is randomness involved, you can fix the random number generator so you always get the same results.
Try:
set.seed(seed=123)
# your code here
The seed can be any integer, or something that can be converted to integer. And that's all.
i've only used k means. There I had to set the number of 'runs' or iterations to a higher value than default to get the same custers at consecutive runs.
i have a problem with clustering time series in R.
I googled a lot and found nothing that fits my problem.
I have made a STL-Decomposition of Timeseries.
The trend component is in a matrix with 64 columns, one for every series.
Now i want to cluster these series in simular groups, involve the curve shapes and the timely shift. I found some functions that imply one of these aspects but not both.
First i tried to calculte a distance matrix with the dtw-distance so i
found clusters based on the values and inply the time shift but not on the shape of the timeseries. After this i tried some correlation based clustering, but then the timely shift
we're not recognized and the result dont satisfy my claims.
Is there a function that could cover my problem or have i to build up something
on my own. Im thankful for every kind of help, after two days of tutorials and examples i totaly uninspired. I hope i could explain the problem well enough to you.
I attached a picture. Here you can see some example time series.
There you could see the problem. The two series in the middle are set to one cluster,
although the upper and the one on the bottom have the same shape as one of the middle.
Have you tried the R package dtwclust
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/dtwclust/index.html
(I'm just starting to explore this package, but it seems like it covers a lot of aspects of time series clustering and it has lots of good references.)
you can use the kml package. It is used specifically to longitudinal data. You can consult its help. It has the next example:
### Generation of some data
cld1 <- generateArtificialLongData(25)
### We suspect 3, 4 or 6 clusters, we want 3 redrawing.
### We want to "see" what happen (so printCal and printTraj are TRUE)
kml(cld1,c(3,4,6),3,toPlot='both')
### 4 seems to be the best. We want 7 more redrawing.
### We don't want to see again, we want to get the result as fast as possible.
kml(cld1,4,10)
Example cluster
I am using R software (R commander) to cluster my data. I have a smaller subset of my data containing 200 rows and about 800 columns. I am getting the following error when trying kmeans cluster and plot on a graph.
"'princomp' can only be used with more units than variables"
I then created a test doc of 10 row and 10 columns whch plots fine but when I add an extra column I get te error again.
Why is this? I need to be able to plot my cluster. When I view my data set after performing kmeans on it I can see the extra results column which shows which clusters they belong to.
IS there anything I am doing wrong, can I ger rid of this error and plot my larger sample???
Please help, been wrecking my head for a week now.
Thanks guys.
The problem is that you have more variables than sample points and the principal component analysis that is being done is failing.
In the help file for princomp it explains (read ?princomp):
‘princomp’ only handles so-called R-mode PCA, that is feature
extraction of variables. If a data matrix is supplied (possibly
via a formula) it is required that there are at least as many
units as variables. For Q-mode PCA use ‘prcomp’.
Principal component analysis is underspecified if you have fewer samples than data point.
Every data point will be it's own principal component. For PCA to work, the number of instances should be significantly larger than the number of dimensions.
Simply speaking you can look at the problems like this:
If you have n dimensions, you can encode up to n+1 instances using vectors that are all 0 or that have at most one 1. And this is optimal, so PCA will do this! But it is not very helpful.
you can use prcomp instead of princomp