I have to make a regression with randomforest in R. My problem is that my dataframe is huge: I have 12 variables and more than 400k entries. When I try - the code is written in the bottom - to get a randomForest regression the system takes many hours to process the data: after 5, 6 hours of calculation, I am obliged to stop the operation without any output. Someone can suggests me how I can get it faster?
Thanks
library(caret)
library(randomForest)
dataset <- read.csv("/home/anonimo/Modelli/total_merge.csv", header=TRUE)
dati <- data.frame(dataset)
attach(dati)
trainSet <- dati[2:107570,]
testSet <- dati[107570:480343,]
output.forest <- randomForest(dati$Clip_pm25 ~ dati$e_1 + dati$Clipped_so + dati$Clip_no2 + dati$t2m_1 + dati$tp_1 + dati$Clipped_nh + dati$Clipped_co + dati$Clipped_o3 + dati$ssrd_1 + dati$Clipped_no + dati$Clip_pm10 + dati$sp_1, data=trainSet, ntree=250)
I don't think to parallelize on a single PC (2-4 cores) is the answer. There are plenty of lower hanging fruits to pick.
1) RF models increase in complexity with number of training samples. The average tree depth would be something like log(480,000/5)/log(2) = 16.5 intermediary nodes. In the vast majority of examples 2000-10000 samples per tree is fine. If you competing to win on kaggle, a small extra performance really matters, as winner takes all. In practice, you probably don't need that.
2) Don't clone you data set in your R code and try to only keep one copy of your data set (pass by reference is of course fine). It's not a big problem for this data set, as the dataset is not that big (~38Mb) even for R.
3) Don't use formula interface with randomForest algorithm for large datasets. It will make an extra copy of the data set. But again memory is not that much of a problem.
4) Use a faster RF algorithm: extraTrees, ranger or Rborist are available for R. extraTrees is not exactly a RF algorithm but pretty close.
5) avoid categorical features with more than 10 categories. RF can handle up to 32, but becomes super slow as any 2^32 possible split has to be evaluated. extraTrees and Rborist handle more categories by only testing some random selected splits (which works fine). Another solution as in the python-sklearn every category are assigned a unique integer, and the feature is handled as numeric. You can convert your categorical features with as.numeric and before runing randomForest to do the same trick.
6) For much bigger data. Split the data set in random blocks and train a few(~10) trees on each. Combine forests or save forests separate. This will slightly increase the tree correlation. There are some nice cluster implementation to train like these. But won't be necessary for datasets below 1-100Gb, depending on tree complexity etc.
#below I use solution 1-3) and get a run time of some minutes
library(randomForest)
#simulate data
dataset <- data.frame(replicate(12,rnorm(400000)))
dataset$Clip_pm25 = dataset[,1]+dataset[,2]^2+dataset[,4]*dataset[,3]
#dati <- data.frame(dataset) #no need to keep the data set, an extra time in memory
#attach(dati) #if you attach dati you don't need to write data$Clip_pm25, just Clip_pm25
#but avoid formula interface for randomForest for large data sets because it cost extra memory and time
#split data in X and y manually
y = dataset$Clip_pm25
X = dataset[,names(dataset) != "Clip_pm25"]
rm(dataset);gc()
object.size(X) #38Mb, no problemo
#if you were using formula interface
#output.forest <- randomForest(dati$Clip_pm25 ~ dati$e_1 + dati$Clipped_so + dati$Clip_no2 + dati$t2m_1 + dati$tp_1 + dati$Clipped_nh + dati$Clipped_co + dati$Clipped_o3 + dati$ssrd_1 + dati$Clipped_no + dati$Clip_pm10 + dati$sp_1, data=trainSet, ntree=250)
#output.forest <- randomForest(dati$Clip_pm25 ~ ., ntree=250) # use dot to indicate all variables
#start small, and scale up slowly
rf = randomForest(X,y,sampsize=1000,ntree=5) #runtime ~15 seconds
print(rf) #~67% explained var
#you probably really don't need to exeed 5000-10000 samples per tree, you could grow 2000 trees to sample most of training set
rf = randomForest(X,y,sampsize=5000,ntree=500) # runtime ~5 minutes
print(rf) #~87% explained var
#regarding parallel
#here you could implement some parallel looping
#.... but is it really worth for a 2-4 x speedup?
#coding parallel on single PC is fun but rarely worth the effort
#If you work at some company or university with a descent computer cluster,
#then you can spawn the process across 20-80-200 nodes and get a ~10-60-150 x speedup
#I can recommend the BatchJobs package
Since you are using caret, you could use the method = "parRF". This is an implementation of parallel randomforest.
For example:
library(caret)
library(randomForest)
library(doParallel)
cores <- 3
cl <- makePSOCKcluster(cores)
registerDoParallel(cl)
dataset <- read.csv("/home/anonimo/Modelli/total_merge.csv", header=TRUE)
dati <- data.frame(dataset)
attach(dati)
trainSet <- dati[2:107570,]
testSet <- dati[107570:480343,]
# 3 times cross validation.
my_control <- trainControl(method = "cv", number = 3 )
my_forest <- train(Clip_pm25 ~ e_1 + Clipped_so + Clip_no2 + t2m_1 + tp_1 + Clipped_nh + Clipped_co + Clipped_o3 + ssrd_1 + Clipped_no + Clip_pm10 + sp_1, ,
data = trainSet,
method = "parRF",
ntree = 250,
trControl=my_control)
Here is a foreach implementation as well:
foreach_forest <- foreach(ntree=rep(250, cores),
.combine=combine,
.multicombine=TRUE,
.packages="randomForest") %dopar%
randomForest(Clip_pm25 ~ e_1 + Clipped_so + Clip_no2 + t2m_1 + tp_1 + Clipped_nh + Clipped_co + Clipped_o3 + ssrd_1 + Clipped_no + Clip_pm10 + sp_1,
data = trainSet, ntree=ntree)
# don't forget to stop the cluster
stopCluster(cl)
Remember I didn't set any seeds. You might want to consider this as well. And here is a link to a randomforest package that also runs in parallel. But I have not tested this.
The other two answers are good. Another option is to actually use more recent packages that are purpose-built for highly dimensional / high volume data sets. They run their code using lower-level languages (C++ and/or Java) and in certain cases use parallelization.
I'd recommend taking a look into these three:
ranger (uses C++ compiler)
randomForestSRC (uses C++ compiler)
h2o (Java compiler - needs Java version 8 or higher)
Also, some additional reading here to give you more to go off on which package to choose: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.04409.pdf
Page 8 shows benchmarks showing the performance improvement of ranger against randomForest against growing data size - ranger is WAY faster due to linear growth in runtime rather than non-linear for randomForest for rising tree/sample/split/feature sizes.
Good Luck!
Related
Thanks in advance for your help.
The short of this is that I have huge foreach loops that are running much slower than I'm used to, and I'm curious as to whether I can speed them up -- it's taking hours (maybe even days).
So, I've been given two large pieces of data ( by friend's who needs help). The first is a very large matrix (728396 rows by 276 columns) of genetic data for 276 participants (I'll call this M1). The second is a dataset (276 rows and 34 columns) of other miscellaneous data about the participants (I'll call this DF1). We're running a multilevel logistic regression model utilizing both sets of data.
I'm using a Windows PC with 8 virtual cores running at 4.7ghz and 36gb of ram.
Here's a portion of the code I've written/modified:
library(pacman)
p_load(car, svMisc, doParallel, foreach, tcltk, lme4, lmerTest, nlme)
load("M1.RDATA")
load("DF1.RDATA")
clust = makeCluster(detectCores() - 3, outfile="")
#I have 4 physical cores, 8 virtual. I've been using 5 because my cpu sits at about 89% like this.
registerDoParallel(clust)
getDoParWorkers() #5 cores
n = 728396
res_function = function (i){
x = as.vector(M1[i,])
#Taking one row of genetic data to be used in the regression
fit1 = glmer(r ~ x + m + a + e + n + (1 | famid), data = DF1, family = binomial(link = "logit"))
#Running the model
c(coef(summary(fit1))[2,1:4], coef(summary(fit1))[3:6,1], coef(summary(fit1))[3:6,4], length(fit1#optinfo[["conv"]][["lme4"]][["messages"]]))
#Collecting data, including whether there are any convergence error messages
}
start_time = Sys.time()
model1 = foreach(i = 1:n, .packages = c("tcltk", "lme4"), .combine = rbind) %dopar% {
if(!exists("pb")) pb <- tkProgressBar("Parallel task", min=1, max=n)
setTkprogressBar(pb, i)
#This is some code I found here to keep track of my progress
res_function(i)
}
end_time = Sys.time()
end_time - start_time
stopCluster(clust)
showConnections()
I've run nearly identical code in the past and it took me only about 13 minutes. However, I suspect that this model is taking up more memory than usual on each core (likely due to the second level) and slowing things down. I've read that BiocParallel, Future, or even Microsoft R Open might work better, but I haven't had much success using any of them (likely due to my own lack of know how). I've also read a bit about the package "bigmemory" to more efficiently use the large matrix across cores, but I ran into several errors when I tried to use it (failed workers and such). I'm also curious about the potential of using my GPU (a Titan X Pascal) for some additional umph if anyone knows more about this.
Any advice would be very appreciated!
I'm hitting a confusing error while trying to run the lme4::allFit() using some built-in parallelization. I fit an initial model m0, which uses a larger dataframe ckDF (n = 265,623 rows) to model a binary response to a number of categorical and continuous predictors in a logistic framework with a random intercept for year.
I'm interested in determining whether different optimizers yield different results, following some recommendations I've found online (e.g. by #BenBolker here). My data is fairly large and takes ~20 minutes to run usually, so I'm hoping to use the parallel and ncpus parameters of allFit() to speed it up a bit. Here's my relevant code:
require(lme4)
require(parallel)
m0 <- glmer(returned ~ 1 + barge + site + barge:site +
(run + rearType + basin)^2 +
(tdg + temp + holdingTime)^2 +
(1|year),
data = ckDF, family = 'binomial',
control = glmerControl(optimizer='bobyqa',
optCtrl = list(maxfun = 1e5)))
af1 <- allFit(m0, parallel = 'multicore', ncpus = detectCores())
Upon doing this, I encounter the following error:
Error in checkForRemoteErrors(val) :
7 nodes produced errors; first error: no applicable method for 'isGLMM' applied to an object of class "list"
Any ideas? It seems to me that when it constructs a bunch of nodes, somehow some of them don't import the lme4 package and thus do not recognize isGLMM(); but I don't know why allFit() would do this, since it's from lme4(). I tried looking under the hood and altering the function for my own allFit() package, but ran into other errors.
Any help would be appreciated. R Version: 3.6.1; lme4 Version: 1.1-21; platform: Windows 10 64-bit
Thanks to #user20650 & #Ben Bolker for the tips in comments above -- it worked and I was able to get allFit() to run as expected, by ensuring I use parallel = "snow" in my function call since I'm running in Windows. Just posting the edited code here for anyone else who finds this useful:
require(lme4); require(snow)
# Define initial model (switched to defaults here)
m0 <- glmer(returned ~ 1 + barge + site + barge:site +
(run + rearType + basin)^2 +
(tdg + temp + holdingTime)^2 +
(1|year),
data = ckDF, family = 'binomial')
# Set up cluster for running allFit()
optCls <- makeCluster(detectCores()-1, type = "SOCK")
clusterEvalQ(optCls,library("lme4"))
clusterExport(optCls, "ckDF")
# Use allFit() to look at differences in optimizers
system.time(af1 <- allFit(m0, parallel = 'snow',
ncpus = detectCores()-1, cl=optCls))
stopCluster(optCls)
Ended up taking ~40 minutes using 11 cores on my machine.
Okay. So this is a similar question to one I posted before for which I still have no satisfactory solution.
As you will see below, I have used some example data to build a Cox PH model which is then passed to a custom function containing a for-loop and a function, predictSurvProb from pec, which ultimately populates a pre-allocated empty vector prediction.
I have tried using cmpfun from compiler. However, there is no improvement in performance. Am I destined to just live with this slow processing speed or are there any ways that I can speed up the processing? I cannot code in C++ so Rcpp is not an option I'd imagine.
Thanks.
require(dplyr, survival, pec)
cox_model <- coxph(Surv(time, status) ~ sex, data = lung)
surv_preds <- function(model, query) {
prediction <- vector(mode = "numeric", length = nrow(query))
time <- 30
for(i in 1:nrow(query)) {
prediction[i] <- predictSurvProb(model, newdata = query[i, ], times = query[i, "time"] + time)
}
prediction
}
surv_preds(cox_model, lung)
After exhausting myself with attempts at C++ and parallel computing efforts, I have found that simply converting factor variables to integers has significantly improved my application. The improvement reduces the processing time to about 60 hours from almost a week!
I suspect that this is still not the most efficient solution but it will have to do for now.
I am trying to run the naiveBayes classifier from the R package e1071. I am running into an issue where the time it takes to predict takes longer than the time it takes to train, by a factor of ~300.
I was wondering if anyone else has observed this behavior and, if so, if you have any suggestions on how to improve it.
This issue appears only in some instances. Below, I have code that trains and predicts the NB classifier on the Iris dataset. Here the training and prediction times match up quite closely (prediction takes 10x longer instead of 300x longer). The only other trace of this issue that I could find online is here. In that instance, the answer was to make sure that categorical variables are formatted as factors. I have done this, but still don't see any improvement.
I have played around with the sample size N and the problem seems to be lessened as N decreases. Perhaps this is intended behavior of the algorithm? Decreasing N by a factor of 10 causes the prediction to be only 150x slower, but increasing by a factor of 10 yields a similar slowdown of 300x. These numbers seem crazy to me, especially because I've used this algorithm in the past on datasets with ~300,000 examples and found it to be quite fast. Something seems fishy but I can't figure out what.
I'm using R version 3.3.1 on Linux. The e1071 package is up-to-date (2015 release).
The code below should be reproducible on any machine. FYI my machine timed the Iris classification at 0.003s, the Iris prediction at 0.032s, the simulated data classification at 0.045s, and the resulting prediction at 15.205s. If you get different numbers than these, please let me know as it could be some issue on my local machine.
# Remove everything from the environment and clear out memory
rm(list = ls())
gc()
# Load required packages and datasets
require(e1071)
data(iris)
# Custom function: tic/toc function to time the execution
tic <- function(gcFirst = TRUE, type=c("elapsed", "user.self", "sys.self"))
{
type <- match.arg(type)
assign(".type", type, envir=baseenv())
if(gcFirst) gc(FALSE)
tic <- proc.time()[type]
assign(".tic", tic, envir=baseenv())
invisible(tic)
}
toc <- function()
{
type <- get(".type", envir=baseenv())
toc <- proc.time()[type]
tic <- get(".tic", envir=baseenv())
print(toc - tic)
invisible(toc)
}
# set seed for reproducibility
set.seed(12345)
#---------------------------------
# 1. Naive Bayes on Iris data
#---------------------------------
tic()
model.nb.iris <- naiveBayes(Species~Sepal.Length+Sepal.Width+Petal.Length+Petal.Width,data=iris)
toc()
tic()
pred.nb.iris <- predict(model.nb.iris, iris, type="raw")
toc()
#---------------------------------
# 2. Simulate data and reproduce NB error
#---------------------------------
# Hyperparameters
L <- 5 # no. of locations
N <- 1e4*L
# Data
married <- 1*(runif(N,0.0,1.0)>.45)
kids <- 1*(runif(N,0.0,1.0)<.22)
birthloc <- sample(1:L,N,TRUE)
major <- 1*(runif(N,0.0,1.0)>.4)
exper <- 15+4*rnorm(N)
exper[exper<0] <- 0
migShifter <- 2*runif(N,0.0,1.0)-1
occShifter <- 2*runif(N,0.0,1.0)-1
X <- data.frame(rep.int(1,N),birthloc,migShifter,occShifter,major,married,kids,exper,exper^2,exper^3)
colnames(X)[1] <- "constant"
rm(married)
rm(kids)
rm(birthloc)
rm(major)
rm(exper)
rm(occShifter)
# Parameters and errors
Gamma <- 15*matrix(runif(7*L), nrow=7, ncol=L)
eps <- matrix(rnorm(N*L, 0, 1), nrow=N, ncol=L)
# Deterministic portion of probabilities
u <- matrix(rep.int(0,N*L), nrow=N, ncol=L)
for (l in 1:L) {
u[ ,l] = (X$birthloc==l)*Gamma[1,l] +
X$major*Gamma[2,l] + X$married*Gamma[3,l]
X$kids*Gamma[4,l] + X$exper*Gamma[5,l]
X$occShifter*Gamma[6,l] + X$migShifter*X$married*Gamma[7,l]
eps[ ,l]
}
choice <- apply(u, 1, which.max)
# Add choice to data frame
dat <- cbind(choice,X)
# factorize categorical variables for estimation
dat$major <- as.factor(dat$major)
dat$married <- as.factor(dat$married)
dat$kids <- as.factor(dat$kids)
dat$birthloc <- as.factor(dat$birthloc)
dat$choice <- as.factor(dat$choice)
tic()
model.nb <- naiveBayes(choice~birthloc+major+married+kids+exper+occShifter+migShifter,data=dat,laplace=3)
toc()
tic()
pred.nb <- predict(model.nb, dat, type="raw")
toc()
I ran into the same problem. I needed to run naive bayes and predict a lot of times (1000's of times) on some big matrices (10000 rows, 1000-2000 cols). Since I had some time, I decided to implement my own implementation of naive bayes to make it a little faster:
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fastNaiveBayes/index.html
I made some work out of this and created a package out of it: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/fastNaiveBayes/index.html. It is now around 330 times faster using a Bernoulli event model. Moreover, it implements a multinomial event model (even a bit faster) and a Gaussian model (slightly faster). Finally, a mixed model where it's possible to use different event models for different columns and combine them!
The reason e1071 is so slow in the predict function, is cause they use essentially a double for loop. There was already a pull request open from around beginning 2017 that at least vectorized one of these, but was not accepted yet.
First some background info, which is probably more interesting on stats.stackexchange:
In my data analysis I try to compare the performance of different machine learning methods on time series data (regression, not classification). So for example I have trained a Boosting trained model and compare this with a Random Forest trained model (R package randomForest).
I use time series data where the explanatory variables are lagged values of other data and the dependent variable.
For some reason the Random Forest severely underperforms. One of the problems I could think of is that the Random Forest performs a sampling step of the training data for each tree. If it does this to time series data, the autoregressive nature of the series is completely removed.
To test this idea, I would like to replace the (bootstrap) sampling step in the randomForest() function with a so called block-wise bootstrap step. This basically means I cut the training set into k parts, where k<<N, where each k-th part is in the original order. If I sample these k parts, I could still benefit from the 'randomness' in the Random Forest, but with the time series nature left largely intact.
Now my problem is this:
To achieve this I would normally copy the existing function and edit the desired step/lines.
randomForest2 <- randomForest()
But the randomForest() function seems to be a wrapper for another wrapper for deeper underlying functions. So how can I edit the actual bootstrap step in the randomForest() function and still run the rest of the function regularly?
So for me the solution wasn't editing the existing randomForest function. Instead I coded the block-wise bootstrap myself, using the split2 function given by Soren H. Welling to create the blocks. Once I had my data block-wise bootstrapped, I looked for a package (rpart) that performed just a single Regression Tree and aggregated it myself (taking the means).
The result for my actual data is a slightly but consistently improved version over the normal random forest performance in terms of RMSPE.
For the code below the performance seems to be a coin-toss.
Taking Soren's code as an example it looks a bit like this:
library(randomForest)
library(doParallel) #parallel package and mclapply is better for linux
library(rpart)
#parallel backend ftw
nCPU = detectCores()
cl = makeCluster(nCPU)
registerDoParallel(cl)
#simulated time series(y) with time roll and lag=1
timepoints=1000;var=6;noise.factor=.2
#past to present orientation
y = sin((1:timepoints)*pi/30) * 1000 +
sin((1:timepoints)*pi/40) * 1000 + 1:timepoints
y = y+rnorm(timepoints,sd=sd(y))*noise.factor
plot(y,type="l")
#convert to absolute change, with lag=1
dy = c(0,y[-1]-y[-length(y)]) # c(0,t2-t1,t3-t2,...)
#compute lag
dy = dy + rnorm(timepoints)*sd(dy)*noise.factor #add noise
dy = c(0,y[-1]-y[-length(y)]) #convert to absolute change, with lag=1
dX = sapply(1:40,function(i){
getTheseLags = (1:timepoints) - i
getTheseLags[getTheseLags<1] = NA #remove before start timePoints
dx.lag.i = dy[getTheseLags]
})
dX[is.na(dX)]=-100 #quick fix of when lag exceed timeseries
pairs(data.frame(dy,dX[,1:5]),cex=.2)#data structure
#make train- and test-set
train=1:600
dy.train = dy[ train]
dy.test = dy[-train]
dX.train = dX[ train,]
dX.test = dX[-train,]
#classic rf
rf = randomForest(dX.train,dy.train,ntree=500)
print(rf)
#like function split for a vector without mixing
split2 = function(aVector,splits=31) {
lVector = length(aVector)
mod = lVector %% splits
lBlocks = rep(floor(lVector/splits),splits)
if(mod!=0) lBlocks[1:mod] = lBlocks[1:mod] + 1
lapply(1:splits,function(i) {
Stop = sum(lBlocks[1:i])
Start = Stop - lBlocks[i] + 1
aVector[Start:Stop]
})
}
#create a list of block-wise bootstrapped samples
aBlock <- list()
numTrees <- 500
splits <- 40
for (ttt in 1:numTrees){
aBlock[[ttt]] <- unlist(
sample(
split2(1:nrow(dX.train),splits=splits),
splits,
replace=T
)
)
}
#put data into a dataframe so rpart understands it
df1 <- data.frame(dy.train, dX.train)
#perform regression trees for Blocks
rfBlocks = foreach(aBlock = aBlock,
.packages=("rpart")) %dopar% {
dBlock = df1[aBlock,]
rf = predict( rpart( dy.train ~., data = dBlock, method ="anova" ), newdata=data.frame(dX.test) )
}
#predict test, make results table
#use rowMeans to aggregate the block-wise predictions
results = data.frame(predBlock = rowMeans(do.call(cbind.data.frame, rfBlocks)),
true=dy.test,
predBootstrap = predict(rf,newdata=dX.test)
)
plot(results[,1:2],xlab="OOB-CV predicted change",
ylab="trueChange",
main="black bootstrap and blue block train")
points(results[,3:2],xlab="OOB-CV predicted change",
ylab="trueChange",
col="blue")
#prediction results
print(cor(results)^2)
stopCluster(cl)#close cluster
To directly alter sampling of randomForest(type="reggression"): Learn basic C programming, download from cran source code randomForest.4.6-10.tar.gz, (if windows install Rtools), (if OSX install Xcode), install and open Rstudio, start new project, choose package, unpack ...tar.gz into folder, look into src folder, open regrf.c, checkout line 151 and 163. Write new sampling strategy, press occationally Ctrl+Shift+B package to rebuild/compile and overwrite randomForest library, correct stated compile errors, test occasionally if package still works, spend some hours figuring out the old uninformative code, perhaps change description file, namespace file, and some few other references so the package will change name to randomForestMod, rebuild, voilla.
A more easy way not changing the randomForest is described below. Any trees with the same feature inputs can be patched together with the function randomForest::combine, so you can design your sampling regime in pure R code. I thought it actually was a bad idea, but for this very naive simulation it actually works with similar/slightly better performance! Remember to not predict the absolute target value, but instead a stationary derivative such as relative change, absolute change etc. If predicting the absolute value, RF will fall back to predicting tomorrow is something pretty close of today. Which is a trivial useless information.
edited code [22:42 CEST]
library(randomForest)
library(doParallel) #parallel package and mclapply is better for linux
#parallel backend ftw
nCPU = detectCores()
cl = makeCluster(nCPU)
registerDoParallel(cl)
#simulated time series(y) with time roll and lag=1
timepoints=1000;var=6;noise.factor=.2
#past to present orientation
y = sin((1:timepoints)*pi/30) * 1000 +
sin((1:timepoints)*pi/40) * 1000 + 1:timepoints
y = y+rnorm(timepoints,sd=sd(y))*noise.factor
plot(y,type="l")
#convert to absolute change, with lag=1
dy = c(0,y[-1]-y[-length(y)]) # c(0,t2-t1,t3-t2,...)
#compute lag
dy = dy + rnorm(timepoints)*sd(dy)*noise.factor #add noise
dy = c(0,y[-1]-y[-length(y)]) #convert to absolute change, with lag=1
dX = sapply(1:40,function(i){
getTheseLags = (1:timepoints) - i
getTheseLags[getTheseLags<1] = NA #remove before start timePoints
dx.lag.i = dy[getTheseLags]
})
dX[is.na(dX)]=-100 #quick fix of when lag exceed timeseries
pairs(data.frame(dy,dX[,1:5]),cex=.2)#data structure
#make train- and test-set
train=1:600
dy.train = dy[ train]
dy.test = dy[-train]
dX.train = dX[ train,]
dX.test = dX[-train,]
#classic rf
rf = randomForest(dX.train,dy.train,ntree=500)
print(rf)
#like function split for a vector without mixing
split2 = function(aVector,splits=31) {
lVector = length(aVector)
mod = lVector %% splits
lBlocks = rep(floor(lVector/splits),splits)
if(mod!=0) lBlocks[1:mod] = lBlocks[1:mod] + 1
lapply(1:splits,function(i) {
Stop = sum(lBlocks[1:i])
Start = Stop - lBlocks[i] + 1
aVector[Start:Stop]
})
}
nBlocks=10 #combine do not support block of unequal size
rfBlocks = foreach(aBlock = split2(train,splits=nBlocks),
.combine=randomForest::combine,
.packages=("randomForest")) %dopar% {
dXblock = dX.train[aBlock,] ; dyblock = dy.train[aBlock]
rf = randomForest(x=dXblock,y=dyblock,sampsize=length(dyblock),
replace=T,ntree=50)
}
print(rfBlocks)
#predict test, make results table
results = data.frame(predBlock = predict(rfBlocks,newdata=dX.test),
true=dy.test,
predBootstrap = predict(rf,newdata=dX.test))
plot(results[,1:2],xlab="OOB-CV predicted change",
ylab="trueChange",
main="black bootstrap and blue block train")
points(results[,3:2],xlab="OOB-CV predicted change",
ylab="trueChange",
col="blue")
#prediction results
print(cor(results)^2)
stopCluster(cl)#close cluster