Love the speed of the ranger package for random forest model creation, but can't see how to tune mtry or number of trees. I realize I can do this via caret's train() syntax, but I prefer the speed increase that comes from using pure ranger.
Here's my example of basic model creation using ranger (which works great):
library(ranger)
data(iris)
fit.rf = ranger(
Species ~ .,
training_data = iris,
num.trees = 200
)
print(fit.rf)
Looking at the official documentation for tuning options, it seems like the csrf() function may provide the ability to tune hyper-parameters, but I can't get the syntax right:
library(ranger)
data(iris)
fit.rf.tune = csrf(
Species ~ .,
training_data = iris,
params1 = list(num.trees = 25, mtry=4),
params2 = list(num.trees = 50, mtry=4)
)
print(fit.rf.tune)
Results in:
Error in ranger(Species ~ ., training_data = iris, num.trees = 200) :
unused argument (training_data = iris)
And I'd prefer to tune with the regular (read: non-csrf) rf algorithm ranger provides. Any idea as to a hyper-parameter tuning solution for either path in ranger? Thank you!
To answer my (unclear) question, apparently ranger has no built-in CV/GridSearch functionality. However, here's how you do hyper-parameter tuning with ranger (via a grid search) outside of caret. Thanks goes to Marvin Wright (the maintainer of ranger) for the code. Turns out caret CV with ranger was slow for me because I was using the formula interface (which should be avoided).
ptm <- proc.time()
library(ranger)
library(mlr)
# Define task and learner
task <- makeClassifTask(id = "iris",
data = iris,
target = "Species")
learner <- makeLearner("classif.ranger")
# Choose resampling strategy and define grid
rdesc <- makeResampleDesc("CV", iters = 5)
ps <- makeParamSet(makeIntegerParam("mtry", 3, 4),
makeDiscreteParam("num.trees", 200))
# Tune
res = tuneParams(learner, task, rdesc, par.set = ps,
control = makeTuneControlGrid())
# Train on entire dataset (using best hyperparameters)
lrn = setHyperPars(makeLearner("classif.ranger"), par.vals = res$x)
m = train(lrn, iris.task)
print(m)
print(proc.time() - ptm) # ~6 seconds
For the curious, the caret equivalent is
ptm <- proc.time()
library(caret)
data(iris)
grid <- expand.grid(mtry = c(3,4))
fitControl <- trainControl(method = "CV",
number = 5,
verboseIter = TRUE)
fit = train(
x = iris[ , names(iris) != 'Species'],
y = iris[ , names(iris) == 'Species'],
method = 'ranger',
num.trees = 200,
tuneGrid = grid,
trControl = fitControl
)
print(fit)
print(proc.time() - ptm) # ~2.4 seconds
Overall, caret is the fastest way to do a grid search with ranger if one uses the non-formula interface.
I think there are at least two errors:
First, the function ranger does not have a parameter called training_data. Your error message Error in ranger(Species ~ ., training_data = iris, num.trees = 200) : unused argument (training_data = iris) refers to that. You can see that when you look at ?ranger or args(ranger).
Second, the function csrf, on the other hand, has training_data as input, but also requires test_data. Most importantly, these two arguments do not have any defaults, implying that you must provide them. The following works without problems:
fit.rf = ranger(
Species ~ ., data = iris,
num.trees = 200
)
fit.rf.tune = csrf(
Species ~ .,
training_data = iris,
test_data = iris,
params1 = list(num.trees = 25, mtry=4),
params2 = list(num.trees = 50, mtry=4)
)
Here, I have just provided iris as both training and test dataset. You would obviously not want to do that in your real application. Moreover, note that ranger also take num.trees and mtry as input, so you could try tuning it there.
Note that mlr per default disables the internal parallelization of ranger. Set hyperparameter num.threads to the number of cores available to speed mlr up:
learner <- makeLearner("classif.ranger", num.threads = 4)
Alternatively, start a parallel backend via
parallelStartMulticore(4) # linux/osx
parallelStartSocket(4) # windows
before calling tuneParams to parallelize the tuning.
Another way to tune the model is to create a manual grid, maybe there are better ways to train the model but this may be a different option.
hyper_grid <- expand.grid(
mtry = 1:4,
node_size = 1:3,
num.trees = seq(50,500,50),
OOB_RMSE = 0
)
system.time(
for(i in 1:nrow(hyper_grid)) {
# train model
rf <- ranger(
formula = Species ~ .,
data = iris,
num.trees = hyper_grid$num.trees[i],
mtry = hyper_grid$mtry[i],
min.node.size = hyper_grid$node_size[i],
importance = 'impurity')
# add OOB error to grid
hyper_grid$OOB_RMSE[i] <- sqrt(rf$prediction.error)
})
user system elapsed
3.17 0.19 1.36
nrow(hyper_grid) # 120 models
position = which.min(hyper_grid$OOB_RMSE)
head(hyper_grid[order(hyper_grid$OOB_RMSE),],5)
mtry node_size num.trees OOB_RMSE
6 2 2 50 0.1825741858
23 3 3 100 0.1825741858
3 3 1 50 0.2000000000
11 3 3 50 0.2000000000
14 2 1 100 0.2000000000
# fit best model
rf.model <- ranger(Species ~ .,data = iris, num.trees = hyper_grid$num.trees[position], importance = 'impurity', probability = FALSE, min.node.size = hyper_grid$node_size[position], mtry = hyper_grid$mtry[position])
rf.model
Ranger result
Call:
ranger(Species ~ ., data = iris, num.trees = hyper_grid$num.trees[position], importance = "impurity", probability = FALSE, min.node.size = hyper_grid$node_size[position], mtry = hyper_grid$mtry[position])
Type: Classification
Number of trees: 50
Sample size: 150
Number of independent variables: 4
Mtry: 2
Target node size: 2
Variable importance mode: impurity
Splitrule: gini
OOB prediction error: 5.33 %
I hope it serves you.
There is also the tuneRanger R package, which is specifically designed for tuning ranger and uses predefined tuning parameters, hyperparameter spaces and intelligent tuning by using the out-of-bag observations.
Note, that random forest is not an algorithm were tuning makes a big difference, usually. But it can usually improve the performance a bit.
Related
I am trying to build a SVM model using the caret package. After tuning the parameters, how can we build the model using the optimal parameters so we don't need to tune the parameters in the future when we use the model? Thanks.
library(caret)
data("mtcars")
set.seed(100)
mydata = mtcars[, -c(8,9)]
model_svmr <- train(
hp ~ .,
data = mydata,
tuneLength = 10,
method = "svmRadial",
metric = "RMSE",
preProcess = c('center', 'scale'),
trControl = trainControl(
method = "repeatedcv",
number = 5,
repeats = 2,
verboseIter = TRUE
)
)
model_svmr$bestTune
The results show that sigma=0.1263203, C=4. How can we build a SVM model using the tuned parameters?
From this page in the caret package's documentation:
In cases where the model tuning values are known, train can be used to fit the model to the entire training set without any resampling or parameter tuning. Using the method = "none" option in trainControl can be used.
In your case, that would look like:
library(caret)
data("mtcars")
set.seed(100)
mydata2 <- mtcars[, -c(8, 9)]
model_svmr <- train(
hp ~ .,
data = mydata,
method = "svmRadial",
trControl = trainControl(method = "none"), # Telling caret not to re-tune
tuneGrid = data.frame(sigma=0.1263203, C=4) # Specifying the parameters
)
where we have removed any parameters relating to the tuning, namely tunelength, metric and preProcess.
Note that plot.train, resamples, confusionMatrix.train and several other functions will not work with this object but predict.train and others will.
I have a dataset with both continuous and categorical variables. I am running regression to predict one of the variables based on the other variables in the dataset. After comparing the results of ridge, lasso and elastic-net regression, the lasso regression is the best model to proceed with.
I used the 'coef' function to extract the model's coefficients, however, the result is a very long list with over 800 variables (as some of my categorical variables have many levels). Is there a way I can quickly rank the coefficients from largest to smallest? This is a glmnet model output
Reproducible problem with example code:
# Libraries Needed
library(caret)
library(glmnet)
library(mlbench)
library(psych)
# Data
data("BostonHousing")
data <- BostonHousing
str(data)
# Data Partition
set.seed(222)
ind <- sample(2, nrow(data), replace = T, prob = c(0.7, 0.3))
train <- data[ind==1,]
test <- data[ind==2,]
# Custom Control Parameters
custom <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv",
number = 10,
repeats = 5,
verboseIter = T)
# Linear Model
set.seed(1234)
lm <- train(medv ~.,
train,
method='lm',
trControl = custom)
# Results
lm$results
lm
summary(lm)
plot(lm$finalModel)
# Ridge Regression
set.seed(1234)
ridge <- train(medv ~.,
train,
method = 'glmnet',
tuneGrid = expand.grid(alpha = 0,
lambda = seq(0.0001, 1, length=5)),#try 5 values for lambda between 0.0001 and 1
trControl=custom)
#increasing lambda = increasing penalty and vice versa
#increase lambda therefore will cause coefs to shrink
# Plot Results
plot(ridge)
plot(ridge$finalModel, xvar = "lambda", label = T)
plot(ridge$finalModel, xvar = 'dev', label=T)
plot(varImp(ridge, scale=T))
# Lasso Regression
set.seed(1234)
lasso <- train(medv ~.,
train,
method = 'glmnet',
tuneGrid = expand.grid(alpha=1,
lambda = seq(0.0001,1, length=5)),
trControl = custom)
# Plot Results
plot(lasso)
lasso
plot(lasso$finalModel, xvar = 'lambda', label=T)
plot(lasso$finalModel, xvar = 'dev', label=T)
plot(varImp(lasso, scale=T))
# Elastic Net Regression
set.seed(1234)
en <- train(medv ~.,
train,
method = 'glmnet',
tuneGrid = expand.grid(alpha = seq(0,1,length=10),
lambda = seq(0.0001,1,length=5)),
trControl = custom)
# Plot Results
plot(en)
plot(en$finalModel, xvar = 'lambda', label=T)
plot(en$finalModel, xvar = 'dev', label=T)
plot(varImp(en))
# Compare Models
model_list <- list(LinearModel = lm, Ridge = ridge, Lasso = lasso, ElasticNet=en)
res <- resamples(model_list)
summary(res)
bwplot(res)
xyplot(res, metric = 'RMSE')
# Best Model
en$bestTune
best <- en$finalModel
coef(best, s = en$bestTune$lambda)
For most models all you'd have to do would be:
sort(coef(model), decreasing=TRUE)
Since you're using glmnet it's a little bit more complicated. I'm going to replicate a minimal version of your example here (the other models, plots, etc. are not necessary in order for us to be able to reproduce your problem ...)
## Packages
library(caret)
library(glmnet)
library(mlbench) ## for BostonHousing data
# Data
data("BostonHousing")
data <- BostonHousing
# Data Partition
set.seed(222)
ind <- sample(2, nrow(data), replace = TRUE, prob = c(0.7, 0.3))
train <- data[ind==1,]
test <- data[ind==2,]
# Custom Control Parameters
custom <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv",
number = 10,
repeats = 5,
verboseIter = TRUE)
# Elastic Net Regression
set.seed(1234)
en <- train(medv ~.,
train,
method = 'glmnet',
tuneGrid = expand.grid(alpha = seq(0,1,length=10),
lambda = seq(0.0001,1,length=5)),
trControl = custom)
# Best Model
best <- en$finalModel
coefs <- coef(best, s = en$bestTune$lambda)
(This could probably be made simpler: for example, do you really need the custom control parameters to show us the example? This would be even simpler without using caret - just using `glmnet - but I was afraid I might leave something out.)
Once you've got the coefficients, sorting does appear to work, albeit with a message about possible inefficiency:
sort(coefs, decreasing=TRUE)
## <sparse>[ <logic> ] : .M.sub.i.logical() maybe inefficient
## [1] 25.191049410 5.078589706 1.389548822 0.244605193 0.045600250
## [6] 0.008840485 0.004372752 -0.012701593 -0.028337745 -0.162794401
## [11] -0.335062819 -0.901475516 -1.395091095 -12.632336419
sort(as.numeric(coefs)) also appears to work fine.
If you want to sort the entire matrix (i.e. keeping the values for all penalization levels), you can take advantage of the fact that the penalization doesn't change the rank-order of the parameters:
coeftab <-coef(best)
lastvals <- coeftab[,ncol(coeftab)]
coeftab_s <- coeftab[order(lastvals,decreasing=TRUE),]
## plot, leaving out the intercept
matplot(t(coeftab_s)[,-1],type="l")
I have the following code segment which works for me and I get the model result:
library(base)
library(caret)
library(tidyverse)
dataset <- read_csv("https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dmpe/bfe07a29c7fc1e3a70d0522956d8e4a9/raw/7ea71f7432302bb78e58348fede926142ade6992/pima-indians-diabetes.csv", col_names=FALSE)
X = dataset[, 1:8]
Y = as.factor(ifelse(dataset$X9 == 1, 'diabetes', 'nondiabetes'))
set.seed(88)
nfolds <- 3
cvIndex <- createFolds(Y, nfolds, returnTrain = T)
fit.control <- trainControl(method="cv",
index=cvIndex,
number=nfolds,
classProbs=TRUE,
savePredictions=TRUE,
verboseIter=TRUE,
summaryFunction=twoClassSummary,
allowParallel=FALSE)
model <- caret::train(X, Y,
method = "svmLinear",
trControl = fit.control,
preProcess=c("center","scale"),
tuneLength=10)
Using this I can access the final model as model$finalModel, however, in this case instead of having one final model, I actually want to have 3 models as I have 3-fold. So, I want to get the trained model after first fold, then after second fold and lastly after the third fold, which corresponds to the actual final model. Any ideas how to achieve this in R? Please note that usage of caret is not strict, if you can do it with mlr that's also welcomed.
The train function in caret streamlines model evaluation and training
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/caret/vignettes/caret.html
"evaluate, using resampling, the effect of model tuning parameters on performance
choose the ``optimal’’ model across these parameters
estimate model performance from a training set"
So, the model that it gives is the optimal final model.
There is no reason to use the models trained on each fold. I'm not aware of how to do this in R
Here is an approach using mlr package:
library(mlr)
library(base)
library(tidyverse)
dataset <- read_csv("https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dmpe/bfe07a29c7fc1e3a70d0522956d8e4a9/raw/7ea71f7432302bb78e58348fede926142ade6992/pima-indians-diabetes.csv", col_names=FALSE)
X = dataset[, 1:8]
Y = as.factor(ifelse(dataset$X9 == 1, 'diabetes', 'nondiabetes'))
create a mlr task:
mlr_task <- makeClassifTask(data = data.frame(X, Y),
target = "Y",
positive = "diabetes")
define the resampling:
set.seed(7)
cv3 <- makeResampleInstance(makeResampleDesc("CV", iters = 3),
task = mlr_task)
define the type of hyper parameter search
ctrl <- makeTuneControlRandom(maxit = 10L)
define a learner
lrn <- makeLearner("classif.ksvm", predict.type = "prob")
optionally check learner parameters to see which ones to tune
mlr::getLearnerParamSet(lrn)
define search space (vanilladot is linear kernel in kernlab package which is called internally for "classif.ksvm"). More info on integrated learners in mlr: https://mlr.mlr-org.com/articles/tutorial/integrated_learners.html
ps <- makeParamSet(makeDiscreteParam("kernel", "vanilladot"),
makeNumericParam("C", lower = 2e-6, upper = 2e-6))
tune hyper parameters. I just set some random measures, the first one listed is used to evaluate the performance, the others are there just for show.
res <- tuneParams(lrn,
mlr_task,
cv3,
measures = list(auc, bac, f1),
par.set = ps,
control = ctrl)
set optimal hyper parameters to a learner
lrn <- setHyperPars(lrn, par.vals = res$x)
resample with models = TRUE
rsmpls <- resample(lrn,
mlr_task,
cv3,
measures = list(auc, bac, f1),
models = TRUE)
models are in
rsmpls$models[[1]]$learner.model
rsmpls$models[[2]]$learner.model
rsmpls$models[[3]]$learner.model
What this does is it first tunes the hyper parameters and then performs another set of cross validation with tuned parameters on the same folds.
an alternative and in my opinion a better approach is to pick hyper parameters in the inner folds of nested cross validation and evaluate on the outer folds keeping outer fold models to fiddle with.
lrn <- makeLearner("classif.ksvm", predict.type = "prob")
define an inner resampling strategy
cv3_inner <- makeResampleDesc("CV", iters = 3)
create a tune wrapper - define what happens in inner cross validation loop
lrn <- makeTuneWrapper(lrn,
resampling = cv3_inner,
measures = list(auc, bac, f1),
par.set = ps,
control = ctrl)
perform outer cross validation
rsmpls <- resample(lrn,
mlr_task,
cv3,
measures = list(auc, bac, f1),
models = TRUE)
This performs three fold CV in the outer loop, in each training instance another, three fold CV is performed to tune the hyper parameters and a model is fit on the whole training instance with optimal hyper parameters, these models are evaluated on the outer loop test instances. This is done to reduce evaluation bias. See also: https://mlr.mlr-org.com/articles/tutorial/nested_resampling.html
Not a caret nor machine learning expert, but why not just train the model on a random sample and store the result in a list?
data <- read_csv("https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dmpe/bfe07a29c7fc1e3a70d0522956d8e4a9/raw/7ea71f7432302bb78e58348fede926142ade6992/pima-indians-diabetes.csv", col_names=FALSE)
train_multiple_models <- function(data, kfolds) {
resultlist <- list()
for(i in 1:kfolds) {
sample <- sample.int(n = nrow(data), size = floor(.75*nrow(data)), replace = F)
train <- data[sample, ]
X = train[, 1:8]
Y = as.factor(ifelse(train$X9 == 1, 'diabetes', 'nondiabetes'))
model <- caret::train(X, Y,
method = "svmLinear",
preProcess=c("center","scale"),
tuneLength=10)
resultlist[[i]] <- model
}
return(resultlist)
}
result <- train_multiple_models(data, kfolds = 3)
> result[[1]]$finalModel
Support Vector Machine object of class "ksvm"
SV type: C-svc (classification)
parameter : cost C = 1
Linear (vanilla) kernel function.
Number of Support Vectors : 307
Objective Function Value : -302.065
Training error : 0.230903
I am new to caret, and I just want to ensure that I fully understand what it’s doing. Towards that end, I’ve been attempting to replicate the results I get from a randomForest() model using caret’s train() function for method="rf". Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to get matching results, and I’m wondering what I’m overlooking.
I’ll also add that given that randomForest uses bootstrapping to generate samples to fit each of the ntrees, and estimates error based on out-of-bag predictions, I’m a little fuzzy on the difference between specifying "oob" and "boot" in the trainControl function call. These options generate different results, but neither matches the randomForest() model.
Although I’ve read the caret Package website (http://topepo.github.io/caret/index.html), as well as various StackOverflow questions that seem potentially relevant, but I haven’t been able to figure out why the caret method = "rf" model produces different results from randomForest(). Thank you very much for any insight you might be able to offer.
Here’s a replicable example, using the CO2 dataset from the MASS package.
library(MASS)
data(CO2)
library(randomForest)
set.seed(1)
rf.model <- randomForest(uptake ~ .,
data = CO2,
ntree = 50,
nodesize = 5,
mtry=2,
importance=TRUE,
metric="RMSE")
library(caret)
set.seed(1)
caret.oob.model <- train(uptake ~ .,
data = CO2,
method="rf",
ntree=50,
tuneGrid=data.frame(mtry=2),
nodesize = 5,
importance=TRUE,
metric="RMSE",
trControl = trainControl(method="oob"),
allowParallel=FALSE)
set.seed(1)
caret.boot.model <- train(uptake ~ .,
data = CO2,
method="rf",
ntree=50,
tuneGrid=data.frame(mtry=2),
nodesize = 5,
importance=TRUE,
metric="RMSE",
trControl=trainControl(method="boot", number=50),
allowParallel=FALSE)
print(rf.model)
print(caret.oob.model$finalModel)
print(caret.boot.model$finalModel)
Produces the following:
print(rf.model)
Mean of squared residuals: 9.380421
% Var explained: 91.88
print(caret.oob.model$finalModel)
Mean of squared residuals: 38.3598
% Var explained: 66.81
print(caret.boot.model$finalModel)
Mean of squared residuals: 42.56646
% Var explained: 63.16
And the code to look at variable importance:
importance(rf.model)
importance(caret.oob.model$finalModel)
importance(caret.boot.model$finalModel)
Using formula interface in train converts factors to dummy. To compare results from caret with randomForest you should use the non-formula interface.
In your case, you should provide a seed inside trainControl to get the same result as in randomForest.
Section training in caret webpage, there are some notes on reproducibility where it explains how to use seeds.
library("randomForest")
set.seed(1)
rf.model <- randomForest(uptake ~ .,
data = CO2,
ntree = 50,
nodesize = 5,
mtry = 2,
importance = TRUE,
metric = "RMSE")
library("caret")
caret.oob.model <- train(CO2[, -5], CO2$uptake,
method = "rf",
ntree = 50,
tuneGrid = data.frame(mtry = 2),
nodesize = 5,
importance = TRUE,
metric = "RMSE",
trControl = trainControl(method = "oob", seed = 1),
allowParallel = FALSE)
If you are doing resampling, you should provide seeds for each resampling iteration and an additional one for the final model. Examples in ?trainControl show how to create them.
In the following example, the last seed is for the final model and I set it to 1.
seeds <- as.vector(c(1:26), mode = "list")
# For the final model
seeds[[26]] <- 1
caret.boot.model <- train(CO2[, -5], CO2$uptake,
method = "rf",
ntree = 50,
tuneGrid = data.frame(mtry = 2),
nodesize = 5,
importance = TRUE,
metric = "RMSE",
trControl = trainControl(method = "boot", seeds = seeds),
allowParallel = FALSE)
Definig correctly the non-formula interface with caret and seed in trainControl you will get the same results in all three models:
rf.model
caret.oob.model$final
caret.boot.model$final
This question is a continuation of the same thread here. Below is a minimal working example taken from this book:
Wehrens R. Chemometrics with R multivariate data analysis in the
natural sciences and life sciences. 1st edition. Heidelberg; New York:
Springer. 2011. (page 250).
The example was taken from this book and its package ChemometricsWithR. It highlighted some pitfalls when modeling using cross-validation techniques.
The Aim:
A cross-validated methodology using the same set of repeated CV to perform a known strategy of PLS followed typically by LDA or cousins like logistic regression, SVM, C5.0, CART, with the spirit of caret package. So PLS would be needed every time before calling the waiting classifier in order to classify PLS score space instead of the observations themselves. The nearest approach in the caret package is doing PCA as a pre-processing step before modeling with any classifier. Below is a PLS-LDA procedure with only one cross-validation to test performance of the classifier, there was no 10-fold CV or any repetition. The code below was taken from the mentioned book but with some corrections otherwise throws error:
library(ChemometricsWithR)
data(prostate)
prostate.clmat <- classvec2classmat(prostate.type) # convert Y to a dummy var
odd <- seq(1, length(prostate.type), by = 2) # training
even <- seq(2, length(prostate.type), by = 2) # holdout test
prostate.pls <- plsr(prostate.clmat ~ prostate, ncomp = 16, validation = "CV", subset=odd)
Xtst <- scale(prostate[even,], center = colMeans(prostate[odd,]), scale = apply(prostate[odd,],2,sd))
tst.scores <- Xtst %*% prostate.pls$projection # scores for the waiting trained LDA to test
prostate.ldapls <- lda(scores(prostate.pls)[,1:16],prostate.type[odd]) # LDA for scores
table(predict(prostate.ldapls, new = tst.scores[,1:16])$class, prostate.type[even])
predictionTest <- predict(prostate.ldapls, new = tst.scores[,1:16])$class)
library(caret)
confusionMatrix(data = predictionTest, reference= prostate.type[even]) # from caret
Output:
Confusion Matrix and Statistics
Reference
Prediction bph control pca
bph 4 1 9
control 1 35 7
pca 34 4 68
Overall Statistics
Accuracy : 0.6564
95% CI : (0.5781, 0.7289)
No Information Rate : 0.5153
P-Value [Acc > NIR] : 0.0001874
Kappa : 0.4072
Mcnemar's Test P-Value : 0.0015385
Statistics by Class:
Class: bph Class: control Class: pca
Sensitivity 0.10256 0.8750 0.8095
Specificity 0.91935 0.9350 0.5190
Pos Pred Value 0.28571 0.8140 0.6415
Neg Pred Value 0.76510 0.9583 0.7193
Prevalence 0.23926 0.2454 0.5153
Detection Rate 0.02454 0.2147 0.4172
Detection Prevalence 0.08589 0.2638 0.6503
Balanced Accuracy 0.51096 0.9050 0.6643
However, the confusion matrix didn't match that in the book, anyway the code in the book did break, but this one here worked with me!
Notes:
Although this was only one CV, but the intention is to agree on this methodology first, sd and mean of the train set were applied on the test set, PLUS transformed into PLS scores based a specific number of PC ncomp. I want this to occur every round of the CV in the caret. If the methodology as code is correct here, then it can serve, may be, as a good start for a minimal work example while modifying the code of the caret package.
Side Notes:
It can be very messy with scaling and centering, I think some of the PLS functions in R do scaling internally, with or without centering, I am not sure, so building a custom model in caret should be handled with care to avoid both lack or multiple scalings or centerings (I am on my guards with these things).
Perils of multiple centering/scaling
The code below is just to show how multliple centering/scaling can change the data, only centering is shown here but the same problem with scaling applies too.
set.seed(1)
x <- rnorm(200, 2, 1)
xCentered1 <- scale(x, center=TRUE, scale=FALSE)
xCentered2 <- scale(xCentered1, center=TRUE, scale=FALSE)
xCentered3 <- scale(xCentered2, center=TRUE, scale=FALSE)
sapply (list(xNotCentered= x, xCentered1 = xCentered1, xCentered2 = xCentered2, xCentered3 = xCentered3), mean)
Output:
xNotCentered xCentered1 xCentered2 xCentered3
2.035540e+00 1.897798e-16 -5.603699e-18 -5.332377e-18
Please drop a comment if I am missing something somewhere in this course. Thanks.
If you want to fit these types of models with caret, you would need to use the latest version on CRAN. The last update was created so that people can use non-standard models as they see fit.
My approach below is to jointly fit the PLS and other model (I used random forest in the example below) and tune them at the same time. So for each fold, a 2D grid of ncomp and mtry is used.
The "trick" is to attached the PLS loadings to the random forest object so that they can be used during prediction time. Here is the code that defines the model (classification only):
modelInfo <- list(label = "PLS-RF",
library = c("pls", "randomForest"),
type = "Classification",
parameters = data.frame(parameter = c('ncomp', 'mtry'),
class = c("numeric", 'numeric'),
label = c('#Components',
'#Randomly Selected Predictors')),
grid = function(x, y, len = NULL) {
grid <- expand.grid(ncomp = seq(1, min(ncol(x) - 1, len), by = 1),
mtry = 1:len)
grid <- subset(grid, mtry <= ncomp)
},
loop = NULL,
fit = function(x, y, wts, param, lev, last, classProbs, ...) {
## First fit the pls model, generate the training set scores,
## then attach what is needed to the random forest object to
## be used later
pre <- plsda(x, y, ncomp = param$ncomp)
scores <- pls:::predict.mvr(pre, x, type = "scores")
mod <- randomForest(scores, y, mtry = param$mtry, ...)
mod$projection <- pre$projection
mod
},
predict = function(modelFit, newdata, submodels = NULL) {
scores <- as.matrix(newdata) %*% modelFit$projection
predict(modelFit, scores)
},
prob = NULL,
varImp = NULL,
predictors = function(x, ...) rownames(x$projection),
levels = function(x) x$obsLevels,
sort = function(x) x[order(x[,1]),])
and here is the call to train:
library(ChemometricsWithR)
data(prostate)
set.seed(1)
inTrain <- createDataPartition(prostate.type, p = .90)
trainX <-prostate[inTrain[[1]], ]
trainY <- prostate.type[inTrain[[1]]]
testX <-prostate[-inTrain[[1]], ]
testY <- prostate.type[-inTrain[[1]]]
## These will take a while for these data
set.seed(2)
plsrf <- train(trainX, trainY, method = modelInfo,
preProc = c("center", "scale"),
tuneLength = 10,
trControl = trainControl(method = "repeatedcv",
repeats = 5))
## How does random forest do on its own?
set.seed(2)
rfOnly <- train(trainX, trainY, method = "rf",
tuneLength = 10,
trControl = trainControl(method = "repeatedcv",
repeats = 5))
Just for kicks, I got:
> getTrainPerf(plsrf)
TrainAccuracy TrainKappa method
1 0.7940423 0.65879 custom
> getTrainPerf(rfOnly)
TrainAccuracy TrainKappa method
1 0.7794082 0.6205322 rf
and
> postResample(predict(plsrf, testX), testY)
Accuracy Kappa
0.7741935 0.6226087
> postResample(predict(rfOnly, testX), testY)
Accuracy Kappa
0.9032258 0.8353982
Max
Based on Max's valuable comments, I felt the need to have IRIS referee, which is famous for classification, and more importantly the Species outcome has more than two classes, which would be a good data set to test the PLS-LDA custom model in caret:
data(iris)
names(iris)
head(iris)
dim(iris) # 150x5
set.seed(1)
inTrain <- createDataPartition(y = iris$Species,
## the outcome data are needed
p = .75,
## The percentage of data in the
## training set
list = FALSE)
## The format of the results
## The output is a set of integers for the rows of Iris
## that belong in the training set.
training <- iris[ inTrain,] # 114
testing <- iris[-inTrain,] # 36
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv",
repeats = 5,
classProbs = TRUE)
set.seed(2)
plsFitIris <- train(Species ~ .,
data = training,
method = "pls",
tuneLength = 4,
trControl = ctrl,
preProc = c("center", "scale"))
plsFitIris
plot(plsFitIris)
set.seed(2)
plsldaFitIris <- train(Species ~ .,
data = training,
method = modelInfo,
tuneLength = 4,
trControl = ctrl,
preProc = c("center", "scale"))
plsldaFitIris
plot(plsldaFitIris)
Now comparing the two models:
getTrainPerf(plsFitIris)
TrainAccuracy TrainKappa method
1 0.8574242 0.7852462 pls
getTrainPerf(plsldaFitIris)
TrainAccuracy TrainKappa method
1 0.975303 0.9628179 custom
postResample(predict(plsFitIris, testing), testing$Species)
Accuracy Kappa
0.750 0.625
postResample(predict(plsldaFitIris, testing), testing$Species)
Accuracy Kappa
0.9444444 0.9166667
So, finally there was the EXPECTED difference, and improvement in the metrics. So this would support Max's notion, that two-class problems because of Bayes' probabilistic approach of plsda function both lead to the same results.
You need to wrap the CV around both PLS and LDA.
Yes, both plsr and lda center the data their own way
I had a closer look at caret::preProcess (): as it is defined now, you will not be able to use PLS as preprocessing method because it is supervised but caret::preProcess () uses unsupervised methods only (there is no way to hand over the dependent variable). This would probably make patching rather difficult.
So inside the caret framework, you'll need to go for a custom model.
If the scenario were to custom a model of PLS-LDA type, according to the code kindly provided by Max (maintainer of CARET), something is not corect in this code, but I didn't figure it out, because I used the Sonar data set the same in caret vignette and tried to reproduce the result one time using method="pls" and another time using the below custom model for PLS-LDA, the results were exactly identical even to the last digit, which was nonsensical. For benchmarking, one need a known data set (I think a cross-validated PLS-LDA for iris data set would fit here as it is famous for this type of analysis and there should be somewhere a cross-validated treatment of it), everything should be the same (the set.seed(xxx) and the no of K-CV repitition) except the code in question so as to rightly compare and to judge the code below:
modelInfo <- list(label = "PLS-LDA",
library = c("pls", "MASS"),
type = "Classification",
parameters = data.frame(parameter = c("ncomp"),
class = c("numeric"),
label = c("#Components")),
grid = function(x, y, len = NULL) {
grid <- expand.grid(ncomp = seq(1, min(ncol(x) - 1, len), by = 1))
},
loop = NULL,
fit = function(x, y, wts, param, lev, last, classProbs, ...) {
## First fit the pls model, generate the training set scores,
## then attach what is needed to the lda object to
## be used later
pre <- plsda(x, y, ncomp = param$ncomp)
scores <- pls:::predict.mvr(pre, x, type = "scores")
mod <- lda(scores, y, ...)
mod$projection <- pre$projection
mod
},
predict = function(modelFit, newdata, submodels = NULL) {
scores <- as.matrix(newdata) %*% modelFit$projection
predict(modelFit, scores)$class
},
prob = function(modelFit, newdata, submodels = NULL) {
scores <- as.matrix(newdata) %*% modelFit$projection
predict(modelFit, scores)$posterior
},
varImp = NULL,
predictors = function(x, ...) rownames(x$projection),
levels = function(x) x$obsLevels,
sort = function(x) x[order(x[,1]),])
Based on Zach's request, the code below is for method="pls" in caret, exactly the same concrete example in caret vigenette on CRAN:
library(mlbench) # data set from here
data(Sonar)
dim(Sonar) # 208x60
set.seed(107)
inTrain <- createDataPartition(y = Sonar$Class,
## the outcome data are needed
p = .75,
## The percentage of data in the
## training set
list = FALSE)
## The format of the results
## The output is a set of integers for the rows of Sonar
## that belong in the training set.
training <- Sonar[ inTrain,] #157
testing <- Sonar[-inTrain,] # 51
ctrl <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv",
repeats = 3,
classProbs = TRUE,
summaryFunction = twoClassSummary)
set.seed(108)
plsFitSon <- train(Class ~ .,
data = training,
method = "pls",
tuneLength = 15,
trControl = ctrl,
metric = "ROC",
preProc = c("center", "scale"))
plsFitSon
plot(plsFitSon) # might be slightly difference than what in the vignette due to radnomness
Now, the code below is a pilot run to classify Sonar data using the custom model PLS-LDA which is under question, it is expected to come up with any numbers apart from identical with those using PLS only:
set.seed(108)
plsldaFitSon <- train(Class ~ .,
data = training,
method = modelInfo,
tuneLength = 15,
trControl = ctrl,
metric = "ROC",
preProc = c("center", "scale"))
Now comparing the results between the two models:
getTrainPerf(plsFitSon)
TrainROC TrainSens TrainSpec method
1 0.8741154 0.7638889 0.8452381 pls
getTrainPerf(plsldaFitSon)
TrainROC TrainSens TrainSpec method
1 0.8741154 0.7638889 0.8452381 custom
postResample(predict(plsFitSon, testing), testing$Class)
Accuracy Kappa
0.745098 0.491954
postResample(predict(plsldaFitSon, testing), testing$Class)
Accuracy Kappa
0.745098 0.491954
So, the results are exactly the same which cannot be. As if the lda model were not added?