I'm trying to make use of the fitted values from a gamm4 model and need them to match up with the right rows in the dataframe I'm working with.
Here's the model I run:
gam.outcome <- gamm4(formula = outcome ~ male + s(gpa),
random = ~ (1|school),
data=avr, na.action="na.exclude")
With an lmer object the "na.exclude" option leaves NAs in the fitted values so that a fitted(lmer.output) call returns a vector the same length and order as the dataframe. But in gamm4 I've tried fitted(gam.outcome$gam) and fitted(gam.outcome$mer) but don't know how to deal with the results of either. The latter omits all NA, despite the "na.exclude" option. The former includes twice as many NA values as lmer which should be a clue of some kind, but I'm too thick to get it. All I know is that either way the vector doesn't line up with the original data.
I imagine there is more than one way to solve my problem. I greatly appreciate help improving or tagging my question as well as answering it. Thanks!
Approximately (untested):
myfitted <- numeric(nrow(avr))
myfitted[!complete.cases(avr)] <- NA
myfitted[complete.cases(avr)] <- fitted(gam.outcome$mer)
Or (also untested)
avrframe <- model.frame(outcome~male+gpa+school,na.action=na.exclude)
napredict(attr(avrframe,"na.action"),fitted(gam.outcome$mer))
The first solution assumes that all of the NA values in avr are either in the columns you are interested in, or are in the same rows as NA values in the columns you are interested in. The second attempts to figure this out automatically.
Related
This is very similar with the following question: R SVM return NA for predictions with missing data
However, the response suggested there does not work (at least for me). Therefore I would like to be more general and try a different approach (or adjust the one proposed there). I can predict using my svm model on the complete.cases() of my data frame. However, it is very important for me to have NA values for all rows with missing data.
My theoretical approach should be the following: predict on complete.cases() of my data frame. Find the index of complete cases. Somehow cbind the column with predictions back to my data.frame(), while adding NA values for all values whose indices are different from those of complete cases. In the essence I should create a column in a data frame by combining two vectors: one of predictions, the other of NA values (based on known indices). However, I am stupid enough not to be able to write the few lines of code for doing that.
I did a regression and coerced all the estimated coefficients in beta.form. R tells me it is a matrix with dim(1,161). I would like to sort the coefficients in increasing manner.
My code:
beta.form <- reg.form$coefficients
beta.ranked <- sort(beta.form, decreasing=FALSE)
My problem: I would like to keep the names of the stocks. But beta.ranked returns me only the sorted values. Which is good already, but I need to know which value belongs to which stock.
If anyone could tell me how to sort while keeping colnames, I would appreciate it a lot!
Ok I solved it!
First I converted the output from the regression into a data.frame and then sorted it. The names and values are presented together.
The mistake I made was that I coerced the data into a vector and the structure of 1x161 was lost.
Solved!
I am a newbie to R. I have a question. For checking the outlier of a variable we generally use:
boxplot(train$rate)
Suppose, the rate is the variable of my datasets and train is my data sets name. But when I have multiple variables like 100 or 150 variables, then it will be very time consuming to check one by one variable's outlier. Is there any function to bring the 100 variables' outlier in one boxplot?
If yes, then which function is used to remove those variable's outlier at one time instead of one by one? Please help to solve this problem.
Thanks in advance
I agree with Rui Barradas that it is bad practice to remove outliers without further thought. As long as the value is valid you should keep it in your data or at least run two separate analyses with and without the influential value. You could use a for loop to apply a function to every variable in your dataset.
train2<-train # Copy old dataset
outvalue<-list() # Create two empty lists
outindex<-list()
for(i in 1:ncol(train2){ # For every column in your dataset
outvalue[[i]]<-boxplot(train2[,i])$out # Plot and get the outlier value
outindex[[i]]<-which(train2[,i] == outvalue[[i]]) # Get the outlier index
train2[outindex[[i]],i] <- NA # Remove the outliers
}
This works and plots the data, but it is quite slow. If you don't want to plot the data but just want the outliers you could look into other outlier functions, the extremevalues package has a function that takes a different approach to identifying outliers and doesn't require a plot.
This uses the getOutliers function from the extremevalues package
outRight<-list()
outLeft<-outRight
for(i in 1:ncol(train2){
outRight[[i]]<-getOutliers(train2[,i])$iRight
outLeft[[i]]<-getOutliers(train2[,i])$iLeft
train2[outRight[[i]],i] <- NA
train2[outLeft[[i]],i] <- NA
}
The function boxplot returns a value. If you see the Value section of its help page you'll see that it's a list with named components, one of which is out. That's the one you seem to be looking for.
bp <- boxplot(train$rate)
bp$out
clean <- train$rate[-which(train$rate %in% bp$out)] # to remove the outliers
I also would not do that. Outliers are data, and normal/likely to occur. By eliminating them you are not taking into account the entirety of your data, a bad practice.
Dear Friends I would appreciate if someone can help me in some question in R.
I have a data frame with 8 variables, lets say (v1,v2,...,v8).I would like to produce groups of datasets based on all possible combinations of these variables. that is, with a set of 8 variables I am able to produce 2^8-1=63 subsets of variables like {v1},{v2},...,{v8}, {v1,v2},....,{v1,v2,v3},....,{v1,v2,...,v8}
my goal is to produce specific statistic based on these groupings and then compare which subset produces a better statistic. my problem is how can I produce these combinations.
thanks in advance
You need the function combn. It creates all the combinations of a vector that you provide it. For instance, in your example:
names(yourdataframe) <- c("V1","V2","V3","V4","V5","V6","V7","V8")
varnames <- names(yourdataframe)
combn(x = varnames,m = 3)
This gives you all permutations of V1-V8 taken 3 at a time.
I'll use data.table instead of data.frame;
I'll include an extraneous variable for robustness.
This will get you your subsetted data frames:
nn<-8L
dt<-setnames(as.data.table(cbind(1:100,matrix(rnorm(100*nn),ncol=nn))),
c("id",paste0("V",1:nn)))
#should be a smarter (read: more easily generalized) way to produce this,
# but it's eluding me for now...
#basically, this generates the indices to include when subsetting
x<-cbind(rep(c(0,1),each=128),
rep(rep(c(0,1),each=64),2),
rep(rep(c(0,1),each=32),4),
rep(rep(c(0,1),each=16),8),
rep(rep(c(0,1),each=8),16),
rep(rep(c(0,1),each=4),32),
rep(rep(c(0,1),each=2),64),
rep(c(0,1),128)) *
t(matrix(rep(1:nn),2^nn,nrow=nn))
#now get the correct column names for each subset
# by subscripting the nonzero elements
incl<-lapply(1:(2^nn),function(y){paste0("V",1:nn)[x[y,][x[y,]!=0]]})
#now subset the data.table for each subset
ans<-lapply(1:(2^nn),function(y){dt[,incl[[y]],with=F]})
You said you wanted some statistics from each subset, in which case it may be more useful to instead specify the last line as:
ans2<-lapply(1:(2^nn),function(y){unlist(dt[,incl[[y]],with=F])})
#exclude the first row, which is null
means<-lapply(2:(2^nn),function(y){mean(ans2[[y]])})
My question is very similar to this one here , but I still can't solve my problem and thus would like to get little bit more help to make it clear. The original dataframe "ddf" looks like:
CONC <- c(0.15,0.52,0.45,0.29,0.42,0.36,0.22,0.12,0.27,0.14)
SPP <- c(rep('A',3),rep('B',3),rep('C',4))
LENGTH <- c(390,254,380,434,478,367,267,333,444,411)
ddf <- as.data.frame(cbind(CONC,SPECIES,LENGTH))
the regression model is constructed based on Species:
model <- dlply(ddf,.(SPP), lm, formula = CONC ~ LENGTH)
the regression model works fine and returns individual models for each species.
What I am going to get is the residual and expected value of 'Length' variable in terms of each models (corresponding to different species) and I want those data could be added into my original dataset ddf as new columns. so the new dataset should looks like:
SPP LENGTH CONC EXPECTED RESIDUAL
Firstly, I use the following code to get the expected value:
model_pre <- lapply(model,function(x)predict(x,data = ddf))
I loom there might be some mistakes in the above code, but it actually works! The result comes with two columns ( predicated value and species). My first question is whether I could believe this result of above code? (Does R fully understand what I am aiming to do, getting expected value of "length" in terms of different model?)
Then i used the following code to attach those data to ddf:
ddf_new <- cbind(ddf, model_pre)
This code works fine as well. But the problem comes here. It seems like R just attach the model_pre result directly to the original dataframe, since the result of model_pre is not sorted the same as the original ddf and thus is obviously wrong(justifying by the species column in original dataframe and model_pre).
I was using resid() and similar lapply, cbind code to get residual and attach it to original ddf. Same problem comes.
Therefore, how can I attach those result correctly in terms of length by species? (please let me know if you confuse what I am trying to explain here)
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
There are several problems with your code, you refer to columns SPP and Conc., but columns by those names don't exist in your data frame.
Your predicted values are made on the entire dataset, not just the subset corresponding to that model (this may be intended, but seems strange with the later usage).
When you cbind a data frame to a list of data frames, does it really cbind the individual data frames?
Now to more helpful suggestions.
Why use dlply at all here? You could just fit a model with interactions that effectively fits a different regression line to each species:
fit <- lm(CONC ~ SPECIES * LENGTH, data= ddf)
fitted(fit)
predict(fit)
ddf$Pred <- fitted(fit)
ddf$Resid <- ddf$CONC - ddf$Pred
Or if there is some other reason to really use dlply and the problem is combining 2 data frame that have different ordering then either use merge or reorder the data frames to match first (see functions like ordor, sort.list, and match).