I'm trying to run a GLM in R for biomass data (reductive biomass and ratio of reproductive biomass to vegetative biomass) as a function of habitat type ("hab"), year data was collected ("year"), and site of data collection ("site"). My data looks like it would fit a Gamma distribution well, but I have 8 observations with zero biomass (out of ~800 observations), so the model won't run. What's the best way to deal with this? What would be another error distribution to use? Or would adding a very small value (such as .0000001) to my zero observations be viable?
My model is:
reproductive_biomass<-glm(repro.biomass~hab*year + site, data=biom, family = Gamma(link = "log"))
Ah, zeroes - gotta love them.
Depending on the system you're studying, I'd be tempted to check out zero-inflated or hurdle models - the basic idea is that there are two components to the model: some binomial process deciding whether the response is zero or nonzero, and then a gamma that works on the nonzeroes. Slick part is you can then do inferences on the coefficients of both models and even use different coefficients for both.
http://seananderson.ca/2014/05/18/gamma-hurdle.html ... but a search for "zero-inflated gamma" or "tweedie models" might also yield something informative and/or scholarly.
In an ideal world, your analytic tool should fit your system and your intended inferences. The zero-inflated world is pretty sweet, but is conditional on the assumption of separate processes. Thus an important question to answer, of course, is what zeroes "mean" in the context of your study, and only you can answer that - whether they're numbers that just happened to be really really small, or true zeroes that are the result of some confounding process like your coworker spilling the bleach (or something otherwise uninteresting to your study), or else true zeroes that ARE interesting.
Another thought: ask the same question over on crossvalidated, and you'll probably get an even more statistically informed answer. Good luck!
Related
I am trying to build a Mixed Model Lasso model using glmmLasso in RStudio. However, I am looking for some assistance.
I have the equation of my model as follows:
glmmModel <- glmmLasso(outcome ~ year + married ,list(ID=~1), lambda = 100, family=gaussian(link="identity"), data=data1,control = list(print.iter=TRUE))
where outcome is a continuous variable, year is the year the data was collected, and married is a binary indicator (1/0) of whether or not the subject is married. I eventually would like to include more covariates in my model, but for the purpose of successfully first getting this to run, right now I am just attempting to run a model with these two covariates. My data1 dataframe is 48000 observations and 57 variables.
When I click run, however, the model runs for many hours (48+) without stopping. The only feedback I am getting is "ITERATION 1," "ITERATION 2," etc... Is there something I am missing or doing wrong? Please note, I am running on a machine with only 8 GB RAM, but I don't think this should be the issue, right? My dataset (48000 observations) isn't particularly large (at least I don't think so). Any advice or thoughts would be appreciated on how I can fix this issue. Thank you!
This is too long to be a comment, but I feel like you deserve an answer to this confusion.
It is not uncommon to experience "slow" performance. In fact in many glmm implementations it is more common than not. The fact is that Generalized Linear Mixed Effect models are very hard to estimate. For purely gaussian models (no penalizer) a series of proofs gives us the REML estimator, which can be estimated very efficiently, but for generalized models this is not the case. As such note that the Random Effect model matrix can become absolutely massive. Remember that for every random effect, you obtain a block-diagonal matrix so even for small sized data, you might have a model matrix with 2000+ columns, that needs to go through optimization through PIRLS (inversions and so on).
Some packages (glmmTMB, lme4 and to some extend nlme) have very efficient implementations that abuse the block-diagonality of the random effect matrix and high-performance C/C++ libraries to perform optimized sparse-matrix calculations, while the glmmLasso (link to source) package uses R-base to perform all of it's computations. No matter how we go about it, the fact that it does not abuse sparse computations and implements it's code in R, causes it to be slow.
As a side-note, my thesis project had about 24000~ observations, with 3 random effect variables (and some odd 20 fixed effects). The fitting process of this dataset could take anywhere between 15 minutes to 3 hours, depending on the complexity, and was primarily decided by the random effect structure.
So the answer from here:
Yes glmmLasso will be slow. It may take hours, days or even weeks depending on your dataset. I would suggest using a stratified (or/and clustered) subsample across independent groups, fit the model using a smaller dataset (3000 - 4000 maybe?), to obtain initial starting points, and "hope" that these are close to the real values. Be patient. If you think neural networks are complex, welcome to the world of generalized mixed effect models.
I am testing different models for the best fit and most robust statistics to my data. My dataset contains over 50000 observations, approx. over 99.3% of the data are zeroes - such 0.7% are actual events.
Eventually see: https://imgur.com/a/CUuTlSK
I search to find the best fit of the following models; Logistic, Poisson, NB, ZIP, ZINB, PLH, NBLH. (NB: Negative-binomial, ZI: Zero-Inflated, P: Poisson, LH: Logit Hurdle)
The first way I tried doing this was by estimating the binary response with logistic regression.
My questions: Can I use Poisson on the binary variable or should I instead impose the binary with some integer values? For instance with the associated loss; if y=1 then y_val=y*loss. In my case, the variance of y_val becomes approx. 2.5E9. I held to use the binary variable because it does not matter, in this purpose, what the company defaulted with, default is default no matter the amount.
Both with logistic regression and Poisson, I got some terrible statistic: Very high deviance value (and 0 p-value), terrible estimates (=many of the estimated parameters are 0 -> odds ratio =1), very low confidence intervals, everything seems to be 'wrong'. If I transform the response variable to log(y_val) for y>1 in Poisson the statistics seem to get better - however, this is against the assumptions of integer count response in Poisson.
I briefly have tested the ZINB, it does not change the statistics significantly (=it does not help at all in this case).
Does there exist any proper way of dealing with such a dataset? I am interested in achieving the best fit for my data (about startup business' and their default status).
The data are cleaned and ready to be fitted. Is there anything I should be aware of that I don't have mentioned?
I use the genmod procedure in SAS with dist=Poisson, zinb, zip etc.
Thanks in advance.
Sorry, my rep is too low to comment, so it has to be an answer.
You should consider undersampling technique before using any regression/model, because your target is below 5%, which makes it extremely difficult to to predict.
Undersampling is a method of cutting out non-target events, in order to increase target ratio, I really recommend considering it, I got to use it once in my practice, and it seemed pretty helpful
I am trying to use the random forests package for classification in R.
The Variable Importance Measures listed are:
mean raw importance score of variable x for class 0
mean raw importance score of variable x for class 1
MeanDecreaseAccuracy
MeanDecreaseGini
Now I know what these "mean" as in I know their definitions. What I want to know is how to use them.
What I really want to know is what these values mean in only the context of how accurate they are, what is a good value, what is a bad value, what are the maximums and minimums, etc.
If a variable has a high MeanDecreaseAccuracy or MeanDecreaseGini does that mean it is important or unimportant? Also any information on raw scores could be useful too.
I want to know everything there is to know about these numbers that is relevant to the application of them.
An explanation that uses the words 'error', 'summation', or 'permutated' would be less helpful then a simpler explanation that didn't involve any discussion of how random forests works.
Like if I wanted someone to explain to me how to use a radio, I wouldn't expect the explanation to involve how a radio converts radio waves into sound.
An explanation that uses the words 'error', 'summation', or 'permutated'
would be less helpful then a simpler explanation that didn't involve any
discussion of how random forests works.
Like if I wanted someone to explain to me how to use a radio, I wouldn't
expect the explanation to involve how a radio converts radio waves into sound.
How would you explain what the numbers in WKRP 100.5 FM "mean" without going into the pesky technical details of wave frequencies? Frankly parameters and related performance issues with Random Forests are difficult to get your head around even if you understand some technical terms.
Here's my shot at some answers:
-mean raw importance score of variable x for class 0
-mean raw importance score of variable x for class 1
Simplifying from the Random Forest web page, raw importance score measures how much more helpful than random a particular predictor variable is in successfully classifying data.
-MeanDecreaseAccuracy
I think this is only in the R module, and I believe it measures how much inclusion of this predictor in the model reduces classification error.
-MeanDecreaseGini
Gini is defined as "inequity" when used in describing a society's distribution of income, or a measure of "node impurity" in tree-based classification. A low Gini (i.e. higher descrease in Gini) means that a particular predictor variable plays a greater role in partitioning the data into the defined classes. It's a hard one to describe without talking about the fact that data in classification trees are split at individual nodes based on values of predictors. I'm not so clear on how this translates into better performance.
For your immediate concern: higher values mean the variables are more important. This should be true for all the measures you mention.
Random forests give you pretty complex models, so it can be tricky to interpret the importance measures. If you want to easily understand what your variables are doing, don't use RFs. Use linear models or a (non-ensemble) decision tree instead.
You said:
An explanation that uses the words
'error', 'summation', or 'permutated'
would be less helpful then a simpler
explanation that didn't involve any
discussion of how random forests
works.
It's going to be awfully tough to explain much more than the above unless you dig in and learn what about random forests. I assume you're complaining about either the manual, or the section from Breiman's manual:
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm#varimp
To figure out how important a variable is, they fill it with random junk ("permute" it), then see how much predictive accuracy decreases. MeanDecreaseAccuracy and MeanDecreaseGini work this way. I'm not sure what the raw importance scores are.
Interpretability is kinda tough with Random Forests. While RF is an extremely robust classifier it makes its predictions democratically. By this I mean you build hundreds or thousands of trees by taking a random subset of your variables and a random subset of your data and build a tree. Then make a prediction for all the non-selected data and save the prediction. Its robust because it deals well with the vagaries of your data set, (ie it smooths over randomly high/low values, fortuitous plots/samples, measuring the same thing 4 different ways, etc). However if you have some highly correlated variables, both may seem important as they are not both always included in each model.
One potential approach with random forests may be to help whittle down your predictors then switch to regular CART or try the PARTY package for inference based tree models. However then you must be wary about data mining issues, and making inferences about parameters.
I ran a model using glmer looking at the effect that Year and Treatment had on the number of points covered with wood, then plotted the residuals to check for normality and the resulting graph is slightly skewed to the right. Is this normally distributed?
model <- glmer(Number~Year*Treatment(1|Year/Treatment), data=data,family=poisson)
This site recommends using glmmPQL if your data is not normal: http://ase.tufts.edu/gsc/gradresources/guidetomixedmodelsinr/mixed%20model%20guide.html
library(MASS)
library(nlme)
model1<-glmmPQL(Number~Year*Treatment,~1|Year/Treatment,
family=gaussian(link = "log"),
data=data,start=coef(lm(Log~Year*Treatment)),
na.action = na.pass,verbose=FALSE)
summary(model1)
plot(model1)
Now do you transform the data in the Excel document or in the R code (Number1 <- log(Number)) before running this model? Does the link="log" imply that the data is already log transformed or does it imply that it will transform it?
If you have data with zeros, is it acceptable to add 1 to all observations to make it more than zero in order to log transform it: Number1<-log(Number+1)?
Is fit<-anova(model,model1,test="Chisq") sufficient to compare both models?
Many thanks for any advice!
tl;dr your diagnostic plots look OK to me, you can probably proceed to interpret your results.
This formula:
Number~Year*Treatment+(1|Year/Treatment)
might not be quite right (besides the missing + between the terms above ...) In general you shouldn't include the same term in both the random and the fixed effects (although there is one exception - if Year has more than a few values and there are multiple observations per year you can include it as a continuous covariate in the fixed effects and a grouping factor in the random effects - so this might be correct).
I'm not crazy about the linked introduction; at a quick skim there's nothing horribly wrong with it, but there seem to b e a lot of minor inaccuracies and confusions. "Use glmmPQL if your data aren't Normal" is really shorthand for "you might want to use a GLMM if your data aren't Normal". Your glmer model should be fine.
interpreting diagnostic plots is a bit of an art, but the degree of deviation that you show above doesn't look like a problem.
since you don't need to log-transform your data, you don't need to get into the slightly messy issue of how to log-transform data containing zeros. In general log(1+x) transformations for count data are reasonable - but, again, unnecessary here.
anova() in this context does a likelihood ratio test, which is a reasonable way to compare models.
I am trying to use the random forests package for classification in R.
The Variable Importance Measures listed are:
mean raw importance score of variable x for class 0
mean raw importance score of variable x for class 1
MeanDecreaseAccuracy
MeanDecreaseGini
Now I know what these "mean" as in I know their definitions. What I want to know is how to use them.
What I really want to know is what these values mean in only the context of how accurate they are, what is a good value, what is a bad value, what are the maximums and minimums, etc.
If a variable has a high MeanDecreaseAccuracy or MeanDecreaseGini does that mean it is important or unimportant? Also any information on raw scores could be useful too.
I want to know everything there is to know about these numbers that is relevant to the application of them.
An explanation that uses the words 'error', 'summation', or 'permutated' would be less helpful then a simpler explanation that didn't involve any discussion of how random forests works.
Like if I wanted someone to explain to me how to use a radio, I wouldn't expect the explanation to involve how a radio converts radio waves into sound.
An explanation that uses the words 'error', 'summation', or 'permutated'
would be less helpful then a simpler explanation that didn't involve any
discussion of how random forests works.
Like if I wanted someone to explain to me how to use a radio, I wouldn't
expect the explanation to involve how a radio converts radio waves into sound.
How would you explain what the numbers in WKRP 100.5 FM "mean" without going into the pesky technical details of wave frequencies? Frankly parameters and related performance issues with Random Forests are difficult to get your head around even if you understand some technical terms.
Here's my shot at some answers:
-mean raw importance score of variable x for class 0
-mean raw importance score of variable x for class 1
Simplifying from the Random Forest web page, raw importance score measures how much more helpful than random a particular predictor variable is in successfully classifying data.
-MeanDecreaseAccuracy
I think this is only in the R module, and I believe it measures how much inclusion of this predictor in the model reduces classification error.
-MeanDecreaseGini
Gini is defined as "inequity" when used in describing a society's distribution of income, or a measure of "node impurity" in tree-based classification. A low Gini (i.e. higher descrease in Gini) means that a particular predictor variable plays a greater role in partitioning the data into the defined classes. It's a hard one to describe without talking about the fact that data in classification trees are split at individual nodes based on values of predictors. I'm not so clear on how this translates into better performance.
For your immediate concern: higher values mean the variables are more important. This should be true for all the measures you mention.
Random forests give you pretty complex models, so it can be tricky to interpret the importance measures. If you want to easily understand what your variables are doing, don't use RFs. Use linear models or a (non-ensemble) decision tree instead.
You said:
An explanation that uses the words
'error', 'summation', or 'permutated'
would be less helpful then a simpler
explanation that didn't involve any
discussion of how random forests
works.
It's going to be awfully tough to explain much more than the above unless you dig in and learn what about random forests. I assume you're complaining about either the manual, or the section from Breiman's manual:
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman/RandomForests/cc_home.htm#varimp
To figure out how important a variable is, they fill it with random junk ("permute" it), then see how much predictive accuracy decreases. MeanDecreaseAccuracy and MeanDecreaseGini work this way. I'm not sure what the raw importance scores are.
Interpretability is kinda tough with Random Forests. While RF is an extremely robust classifier it makes its predictions democratically. By this I mean you build hundreds or thousands of trees by taking a random subset of your variables and a random subset of your data and build a tree. Then make a prediction for all the non-selected data and save the prediction. Its robust because it deals well with the vagaries of your data set, (ie it smooths over randomly high/low values, fortuitous plots/samples, measuring the same thing 4 different ways, etc). However if you have some highly correlated variables, both may seem important as they are not both always included in each model.
One potential approach with random forests may be to help whittle down your predictors then switch to regular CART or try the PARTY package for inference based tree models. However then you must be wary about data mining issues, and making inferences about parameters.