I'm relatively new to R and am currently in the process of constructing a PLS model using the pls package. I have two independent datasets of equal size, the first is used here for calibrating the model. The dataset comprises of multiple response variables (y) and 101 explanatory variables (x), for 28 observations. The response variables, however, will each be included seperately in a PLS model. The code current looks as follows:
# load data
data <- read.table("....txt", header=TRUE)
data <- as.data.frame(data)
# define response variables (y)
HEIGHT <- as.numeric(unlist(data[2]))
FBM <- as.numeric(unlist(data[3]))
N <- as.numeric(unlist(data[4]))
C <- as.numeric(unlist(data[5]))
CHL <- as.numeric(unlist(data[6]))
# generate matrix containing the explanatory (x) variables only
spectra <-(data[8:ncol(data)])
# calibrate PLS model using LOO and 20 components
library(pls)
refl.pls <- plsr(N ~ as.matrix(spectra), ncomp=20, validation = "LOO", jackknife = TRUE)
# visualize RMSEP -vs- number of components
plot(RMSEP(refl.pls), legendpos = "topright")
# calculate explained variance for x & y variables
summary(refl.pls)
I have currently arrived at the point at which I need to decide, for each response variable, the optimal number of components to include in my PLS model. The RMSEP values already provide a decent indication. However, I would also like to base my decision on the PRESS (Predicted Residual Sum of Squares) statistic, in accordance various studies comparable to the one I am conducting. So in short, I would like to extract the PRESS statistic for each PLS model with n components.
I have browsed through the pls package documentation and across the web, but unfortunately have been unable to find an answer. If there is anyone out here that could help me get in the right direction that would be greatly appreciated!
You can find the PRESS values in the mvr object.
refl.pls$validation$PRESS
You can see this either by exploring the object directly with str or by perusing the documentation more thoroughly. You will notice if you look at ?mvr you will see the following:
validation if validation was requested, the results of the
cross-validation. See mvrCv for details.
Validation was indeed requested so we follow this to ?mvrCv where you will find:
PRESS a matrix of PRESS values for models with 1, ...,
ncomp components. Each row corresponds to one response variable.
Related
I am using the R package machisplin (it's not on CRAN) to downscale a satellite image. According to the description of the package:
The machisplin.mltps function simultaneously evaluates different combinations of the six algorithms to predict the input data. During model tuning, each algorithm is systematically weighted from 0-1 and the fit of the ensembled model is evaluated. The best performing model is determined through k-fold cross validation (k=10) and the model that has the lowest residual sum of squares of test data is chosen. After determining the best model algorithms and weights, a final model is created using the full training dataset.
My question is how can I check which model out of the 6 has been selected for the downscaling? To put it differently, when I export the downscaled image, I would like to know which algorithm (out of the 6) has been used to perform the downscaling.
Here is the code:
library(MACHISPLIN)
library(raster)
library(gbm)
evi = raster("path/evi.tif") # covariate
ntl = raster("path/ntl_1600.tif") # raster to be downscaled
##convert one of the rasters to a point dataframe to sample. Use any raster input.
ntl.points<-rasterToPoints(ntl,
fun = NULL,
spatial = FALSE)
##subset only the x and y data
ntl.points<- ntl.points[,1:2]
##Extract values to points from rasters
RAST_VAL<-data.frame(extract(ntl, ntl.points))
##merge sampled data to input
InInterp<-cbind(ntl.points, RAST_VAL)
#run an ensemble machine learning thin plate spline
interp.rast<-machisplin.mltps(int.values = InInterp,
covar.ras = evi,
smooth.outputs.only = T,
tps = T,
n.cores = 4)
#set negative values to 0
interp.rast[[1]]$final[interp.rast[[1]]$final <= 0] <- 0
writeRaster(interp.rast[[1]]$final,
filename = "path/ntl_splines.tif")
I vied all the output parameters (please refer to Example 2 in the package description) but I couldn't find anything relevant to my question.
I have posted a question on GitHub as well. From here you can download my images.
I think this is a misunderstanding; mahcisplin, isnt testing 6 and gives one. it's trying many ensembles of 6 and its giving one ensemble... or in other words
that its the best 'combination of 6 algorithms' that I will get, and not one of 6 algo's chosen.
It will get something like "a model which is 20% algo1 , 10% algo2 etc. "and not "algo1 is the best and chosen"
This is a fairly complicated situation, so I'll try to succinctly explain but feel free to ask for clarification.
I have several datasets of biological data that vary significantly in sample size (e.g., 253-1221 observations/dataset). I need to estimate individual breeding parameters and compare them (for a different analysis), but because of the large sample size differences, I took a sub-set of data from each dataset so the sample sizes were equal for each comparison. For example, the smallest dataset had 253 observations, so for all the others I used the following code
AT_EABL_subset <- Atlantic_EABL[sample(1:nrow(Atlantic_EABL), 253,replace=FALSE),]
to take a subset of 253 observations from the full dataset (in this case AT_EABL originally had 1,221 observations).
It's now suggested that I use bootstrapping to check if the parameter estimates from my subsets are similar to the full dataset estimates. I'm looking for code that will run, say, 200 iterations of the above subset data and calculate the average of the coefficients so I can compare them to the coefficients from my model with the full dataset. I found a site that uses the sample function to achieve this (https://towardsdatascience.com/bootstrap-regression-in-r-98bfe4ff5007), but when I get to this portion of the code
c(sample_coef_intercept, model_bootstrap$coefficients[1])
sample_coef_x1 <-
c(sample_coef_x1, model_bootstrap$coefficients[2])
}
I get
Error: $ operator not defined for this S4 class
Below is the code I'm using. I don't know if I'm getting the above error because of the type of model I'm running (glmer vs. lm used in the link), or if there's a different function that will give me the data I need. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
sample_coef_intercept <- NULL
sample_coef_x1 <- NULL
for (i in 1:2) {
boot.sample = AT_EABL_subset[sample(1:nrow(AT_EABL_subset), nrow(AT_EABL_subset), replace = FALSE), ]
model_bootstrap <- glmer(cbind(YOUNG_HOST_TOTAL_ATLEAST,CLUTCH_SIZE_HOST_ATLEAST-YOUNG_HOST_TOTAL_ATLEAST)~as.factor(YEAR)+(1|LatLong),binomial,data=boot.sample)}
sample_coef_intercept <-
c(sample_coef_intercept, model_bootstrap$coefficients[1])
sample_coef_x1 <-
c(sample_coef_x1, model_bootstrap$coefficients[2])
I am trying to convert Absorbance (Abs) values to Concentration (ng/mL), based on an established linear model & standard curve. I planned to do this by using the predict() function. I am having trouble getting predict() to return the desired results. Here is a sample of my code:
Standards<-data.frame(ng_mL=c(0,0.4,1,4),
Abs550nm=c(1.7535,1.5896,1.4285,0.9362))
LM.2<-lm(log(Standards[['Abs550nm']])~Standards[['ng_mL']])
Abs<-c(1.7812,1.7309,1.3537,1.6757,1.7409,1.7875,1.7533,1.8169,1.753,1.6721,1.7036,1.6707,
0.3903,0.3362,0.2886,0.281,0.3596,0.4122,0.218,0.2331,1.3292,1.2734)
predict(object=LM.2,
newdata=data.frame(Concentration=Abs[1]))#using Abs[1] as an example, but I eventually want predictions for all values in Abs
Running that last lines gives this output:
> predict(object=LM.2,
+ newdata=data.frame(Concentration=Abs[1]))
1 2 3 4
0.5338437 0.4731341 0.3820697 -0.0732525
Warning message:
'newdata' had 1 row but variables found have 4 rows
This does not seem to be the output I want. I am trying to get a single predicted Concentration value for each Absorbance (Abs) entry. It would be nice to be able to predict all of the entries at once and add them to an existing data frame, but I can't even get it to give me a single value correctly. I've read many threads on here, webpages found on Google, and all of the help files, and for the life of me I cannot understand what is going on with this function. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
You must have a variable in newdata that has the same name as that used in the model formula used to fit the model initially.
You have two errors:
You don't use a variable in newdata with the same name as the covariate used to fit the model, and
You make the problem much more difficult to resolve because you abuse the formula interface.
Don't fit your model like this:
mod <- lm(log(Standards[['Abs550nm']])~Standards[['ng_mL']])
fit your model like this
mod <- lm(log(Abs550nm) ~ ng_mL, data = standards)
Isn't that some much more readable?
To predict you would need a data frame with a variable ng_mL:
predict(mod, newdata = data.frame(ng_mL = c(0.5, 1.2)))
Now you may have a third error. You appear to be trying to predict with new values of Absorbance, but the way you fitted the model, Absorbance is the response variable. You would need to supply new values for ng_mL.
The behaviour you are seeing is what happens when R can't find a correctly-named variable in newdata; it returns the fitted values from the model or the predictions at the observed data.
This makes me think you have the formula back to front. Did you mean:
mod2 <- lm(ng_mL ~ log(Abs550nm), data = standards)
?? In which case, you'd need
predict(mod2, newdata = data.frame(Abs550nm = c(1.7812,1.7309)))
say. Note you don't need to include the log() bit in the name. R recognises that as a function and applies to the variable Abs550nm for you.
If the model really is log(Abs550nm) ~ ng_mL and you want to find values of ng_mL for new values of Abs550nm you'll need to invert the fitted model in some way.
Long story short:
I need to run a multinomial logit regression with both individual and time fixed effects in R.
I thought I could use the packages mlogit and survival to this purpose, but I am cannot find a way to include fixed effects.
Now the long story:
I have found many questions on this topic on various stack-related websites, none of them were able to provide an answer. Also, I have noticed a lot of confusion regarding what a multinomial logit regression with fixed effects is (people use different names) and about the R packages implementing this function.
So I think it would be beneficial to provide some background before getting to the point.
Consider the following.
In a multiple choice question, each respondent take one choice.
Respondents are asked the same question every year. There is no apriori on the extent to which choice at time t is affected by the choice at t-1.
Now imagine to have a panel data recording these choices. The data, would look like this:
set.seed(123)
# number of observations
n <- 100
# number of possible choice
possible_choice <- letters[1:4]
# number of years
years <- 3
# individual characteristics
x1 <- runif(n * 3, 5.0, 70.5)
x2 <- sample(1:n^2, n * 3, replace = F)
# actual choice at time 1
actual_choice_year_1 <- possible_choice[sample(1:4, n, replace = T, prob = rep(1/4, 4))]
actual_choice_year_2 <- possible_choice[sample(1:4, n, replace = T, prob = c(0.4, 0.3, 0.2, 0.1))]
actual_choice_year_3 <- possible_choice[sample(1:4, n, replace = T, prob = c(0.2, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1))]
# create long dataset
df <- data.frame(choice = c(actual_choice_year_1, actual_choice_year_2, actual_choice_year_3),
x1 = x1, x2 = x2,
individual_fixed_effect = as.character(rep(1:n, years)),
time_fixed_effect = as.character(rep(1:years, each = n)),
stringsAsFactors = F)
I am new to this kind of analysis. But if I understand correctly, if I want to estimate the effects of respondents' characteristics on their choice, I may use a multinomial logit regression.
In order to take advantage of the longitudinal structure of the data, I want to include in my specification individual and time fixed effects.
To the best of my knowledge, the multinomial logit regression with fixed effects was first proposed by Chamberlain (1980, Review of Economic Studies 47: 225–238). Recently, Stata users have been provided with the routines to implement this model (femlogit).
In the vignette of the femlogit package, the author refers to the R function clogit, in the survival package.
According to the help page, clogit requires data to be rearranged in a different format:
library(mlogit)
# create wide dataset
data_mlogit <- mlogit.data(df, id.var = "individual_fixed_effect",
group.var = "time_fixed_effect",
choice = "choice",
shape = "wide")
Now, if I understand correctly how clogit works, fixed effects can be passed through the function strata (see for additional details this tutorial). However, I am afraid that it is not clear to me how to use this function, as no coefficient values are returned for the individual characteristic variables (i.e. I get only NAs).
library(survival)
fit <- clogit(formula("choice ~ alt + x1 + x2 + strata(individual_fixed_effect, time_fixed_effect)"), as.data.frame(data_mlogit))
summary(fit)
Since I was not able to find a reason for this (there must be something that I am missing on the way these functions are estimated), I have looked for a solution using other packages in R: e.g., glmnet, VGAM, nnet, globaltest, and mlogit.
Only the latter seems to be able to explicitly deal with panel structures using appropriate estimation strategy. For this reason, I have decided to give it a try. However, I was only able to run a multinomial logit regression without fixed effects.
# state formula
formula_mlogit <- formula("choice ~ 1| x1 + x2")
# run multinomial regression
fit <- mlogit(formula_mlogit, data_mlogit)
summary(fit)
If I understand correctly how mlogit works, here's what I have done.
By using the function mlogit.data, I have created a dataset compatible with the function mlogit. Here, I have also specified the id of each individual (id.var = individual_fixed_effect) and the group to which individuals belongs to (group.var = "time_fixed_effect"). In my case, the group represents the observations registered in the same year.
My formula specifies that there are no variables correlated with a specific choice, and which are randomly distributed among individuals (i.e., the variables before the |). By contrast, choices are only motivated by individual characteristics (i.e., x1 and x2).
In the help of the function mlogit, it is specified that one can use the argument panel to use panel techniques. To set panel = TRUE is what I am after here.
The problem is that panel can be set to TRUE only if another argument of mlogit, i.e. rpar, is not NULL.
The argument rpar is used to specify the distribution of the random variables: i.e. the variables before the |.
The problem is that, since these variables does not exist in my case, I can't use the argument rpar and then set panel = TRUE.
An interesting question related to this is here. A few suggestions were given, and one seems to go in my direction. Unfortunately, no examples that I can replicate are provided, and I do not understand how to follow this strategy to solve my problem.
Moreover, I am not particularly interested in using mlogit, any efficient way to perform this task would be fine for me (e.g., I am ok with survival or other packages).
Do you know any solution to this problem?
Two caveats for those interested in answering:
I am interested in fixed effects, not in random effects. However, if you believe there is no other way to take advantage of the longitudinal structure of my data in R (there is indeed in Stata but I don't want to use it), please feel free to share your code.
I am not interested in going Bayesian. So if possible, please do not suggest this approach.
I am trying to generate a random set of numbers that exactly mirror a data set that I have (to test it). The dataset consists of 5 variables that are all correlated with different means and standard deviations as well as ranges (they are likert scales added together to form 1 variable). I have been able to get mvrnorm from the MASS package to create a dataset that replicated the correlation matrix with the observed number of observations (after 500,000+ iterations), and I can easily reassign means and std. dev. through z-score transformation, but I still have specific values within each variable vector that are far above or below the possible range of the scale whose score I wish to replicate.
Any suggestions how to fix the range appropriately?
Thank you for sharing your knowledge!
To generate a sample that does "exactly mirror" the original dataset, you need to make sure that the marginal distributions and the dependence structure of the sample matches those of the original dataset.
A simple way to achieve this is with resampling
my.data <- matrix(runif(1000, -1, 2), nrow = 200, ncol = 5) # Some dummy data
my.ind <- sample(1:nrow(my.data), nrow(my.data), replace = TRUE)
my.sample <- my.data[my.ind, ]
This will ensure that the margins and the dependence structure of the sample (closely) matches those of the original data.
An alternative is to use a parametric model for the margins and/or the dependence structure (copula). But as staded by #dickoa, this will require serious modeling effort.
Note that by using a multivariate normal distribution, you are (implicity) assuming that the dependence structure of the original data is the Gaussian copula. This is a strong assumption, and it would need to be validated beforehand.