I am rleatively new to statistics and am stuggling with the normality assumption.
I understand that parametric tests are underpinned by the assumption that the data is normally distributed, but there seems to be lots of papers and articles providing conflicting information.
Some articles say that independant variables need to be normally disrbiuted and this may require a transformation (log, SQRT etc.). Others says that in linear modelling there are no assumptions about any linear the distribution of the independent variables.
I am trying to create a multiple regression model to predict highest pain scores on hospital admissions:
DV: numeric pain scores (0-no pain -> 5 intense pain)(discrete- dependant variable).
IVs: age (continuous), weight (continuous), sex (nominal), depreviation status (ordinal), race (nominal).
Can someone help clear up the following for me?
Before fitting a model, do I need to check the whether my independant variables are normally distributed? If so, why? Does this only apply to continuous variables (e.g. age and weight in my model)?
If age is positively skewed, would a transformation (e.g. log, SQRT) be appropriate and why? Is it best to do this before or after fitting a model? I assume I am trying to get close to a linear relationship between my DV and IV.
As part of the SPSS outputs it provides plots of the standardised residuals against predicted values and also normal P-P plots of standardised residuals. Are these tests all that is needed to check the normality assumption after fitting a model?
Many Thanks in advance!
Related
I am trying to create a decision tree based on some training data. I have never created a decision tree before, but have completed a few linear regression models. I have 3 questions:
With linear regression I find it fairly easy to plot graphs, fit models, group factor levels, check P statistics etc. in an iterative fashion until I end up with a good predictive model. I have no idea how to evaluate a decision tree. Is there a way to get a summary of the model, (for example, .summary() function in statsmodels)? Should this be an iterative process where I decide whether a factor is significant - if so how can I tell?
I have been very unsuccessful in visualising the decision tree. On the various different ways I have tried, the code seems to run without any errors, yet nothing appears / plots. The only thing I can do successfully is tree.export_text(model), which just states feature_1, feature_2, and so on. I don't know what any of the features actually are. Has anybody come across these difficulties with visualising / have a simple solution?
The confusion matrix that I have generated is as follows:
[[ 0 395]
[ 0 3319]]
i.e. the model is predicting all rows to the same outcome. Does anyone know why this might be?
Scikit-learn is a library designed to build predictive models, so there are no tests of significance, confidence intervals, etc. You can always build your own statistics, but this is a tedious process. In scikit-learn, you can eliminate features recursively using RFE, RFECV, etc. You can find a list of feature selection algorithms here. For the most part, these algorithms get rid off the least important feature in each loop according to feature_importances (where the importance of each feature is defined as its contribution to the reduction in entropy, gini, etc.).
The most straight forward way to visualize a tree is tree.plot_tree(). In particular, you should try passing the names of the features to feature_names. Please show us what you have tried so far if you want a more specific answer.
Try another criterion, set a higher max_depth, etc. Sometimes datasets have unidentifiable records. For example, two observations with the exact same values in all features, but different target labels. Is this the case in your dataset?
I’m trying to check the performance of my LDA model using a confusion matrix but I have no clue what to do. I’m hoping someone can maybe just point my in the right direction.
So I ran an LDA model on a corpus filled with short documents. I then calculated the average vector of each document and then proceeded with calculating cosine similarities.
How would I now get a confusion matrix? Please note that I am very new to the world of NLP. If there is some other/better way of checking the performance of this model please let me know.
What is your model supposed to be doing? And how is it testable?
In your question you haven't described your testable assessment of the model the results of which would be represented in a confusion matrix.
A confusion matrix helps you represent and explore the different types of "accuracy" of a predictive system such as a classifier. It requires your system to make a choice (e.g. yes/no, or multi-label classifier) and you must use known test data to be able to score it against how the system should have chosen. Then you count these results in the matrix as one of the combination of possibilities, e.g. for binary choices there's two wrong and two correct.
For example, if your cosine similarities are trying to predict if a document is in the same "category" as another, and you do know the real answers, then you can score them all as to whether they were predicted correctly or wrongly.
The four possibilities for a binary choice are:
Positive prediction vs. positive actual = True Positive (correct)
Negative prediction vs. negative actual = True Negative (correct)
Positive prediction vs. negative actual = False Positive (wrong)
Negative prediction vs. positive actual = False Negative (wrong)
It's more complicated in a multi-label system as there are more combinations, but the correct/wrong outcome is similar.
About "accuracy".
There are many kinds of ways to measure how well the system performs, so it's worth reading up on this before choosing the way to score the system. The term "accuracy" means something specific in this field, and is sometimes confused with the general usage of the word.
How you would use a confusion matrix.
The confusion matrix sums (of total TP, FP, TN, FN) can fed into some simple equations which give you, these performance ratings (which are referred to by different names in different fields):
sensitivity, d' (dee-prime), recall, hit rate, or true positive rate (TPR)
specificity, selectivity or true negative rate (TNR)
precision or positive predictive value (PPV)
negative predictive value (NPV)
miss rate or false negative rate (FNR)
fall-out or false positive rate (FPR)
false discovery rate (FDR)
false omission rate (FOR)
Accuracy
F Score
So you can see that Accuracy is a specific thing, but it may not be what you think of when you say "accuracy"! The last two are more complex combinations of measure. The F Score is perhaps the most robust of these, as it's tuneable to represent your requirements by combining a mix of other metrics.
I found this wikipedia article most useful and helped understand why sometimes is best to choose one metric over the other for your application (e.g. whether missing trues is worse than missing falses). There are a group of linked articles on the same topic, from different perspectives e.g. this one about search.
This is a simpler reference I found myself returning to: http://www2.cs.uregina.ca/~dbd/cs831/notes/confusion_matrix/confusion_matrix.html
This is about sensitivity, more from a science statistical view with links to ROC charts which are related to confusion matrices, and also useful for visualising and assessing performance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_index
This article is more specific to using these in machine learning, and goes into more detail: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs578/2003fa/performance_measures.pdf
So in summary confusion matrices are one of many tools to assess the performance of a system, but you need to define the right measure first.
Real world example
I worked through this process recently in a project I worked on where the point was to find all of few relevant documents from a large set (using cosine distances like yours). This was like a recommendation engine driven by manual labelling rather than an initial search query.
I drew up a list of goals with a stakeholder in their own terms from the project domain perspective, then tried to translate or map these goals into performance metrics and statistical terms. You can see it's not just a simple choice! The hugely imbalanced nature of our data set skewed the choice of metric as some assume balanced data or else they will give you misleading results.
Hopefully this example will help you move forward.
I am currently modeling some data using a binary logistic regression. The dependent variable has a good number of positive cases and negative cases - it is not sparse. I also have a large training set (> 100,000) and the number of main effects I'm interested in is about 15 so I'm not worried about a p>n issue.
What I'm concerned about is that many of my predictor variables, if continuous, are zero most of the time, and if nominal, are null most of the time. When these sparse predictor variables take a value > 0 (or not null), I know because of familiarity with the data that they should be of importance in predicting my positive cases. I have been trying to look for information on how the sparseness of these predictors could be affecting my model.
In particular, I would not want the effect of a sparse but important variable to be not included in my model if there is another predictor variable that is not sparse and is correlated but actually doesn't do as good a job of predicting the positive cases. To illustrate an example, if I were trying to model whether or not someone ended up being accepted at a particular ivy league university and my three predictors were SAT score, GPA, and "donation > $1M" as a binary, I have reason to believe that "donation >$1M", when true, is going to be very predictive of acceptance - more so than a high GPA or SAT - but it is also very sparse. How, if at all, is this going to effect my logistic model and do I need to make adjustments for this? Also, would another type of model (say decision tree, random forest, etc) handle this better?
Thanks,
Christie
I have training data that falls into two classes, let's say Yes and No. The data represents three tasks, easy, medium and difficult. A person performs these tasks and is classified into one of the two classes as a result. Each task is classified independently and then the results are combined. I am using 3 independently trained SVM classifiers and then voting on the final result.
I am looking to provide a measure of confidence or probability associated with each classification. LIBSVM can provide a probability estimate along with the classification for each task (easy, medium and difficult, say Pe, Pm and Pd) but I am unsure of how best to combine these into an overall estimate for the final classification of the person (let's call it Pp).
My attempts so far have been along the lines of a simple average:
Pp = (Pe + Pm + Pd) / 3
An Inverse-variance weighted average (since each task is repeated a few times and sample variance (VARe, VARm and VARd) can be calculated - in which case Pe would be a simple average of all the easy samples):
Pp = (Pe/VARe + Pm/VARm + Pd/VARd) / (( 1/VARe ) + ( 1/VARm ) + ( 1/VARd ))
Or a multiplication (under the assumption that these events are independent, which I am unsure of since the underlying tasks are related):
Pp = Pe * Pm * Pd
The multiplication would provide a very low number, so it's unclear how to interpret that as an overall probability when the results of the voting are very clear.
Would any of these three options be the best or is there some other method / detail I'm overlooking?
Based on your comment, I will make the following suggestion. If you need to do this as an SVM (and because, as you say, you get better performance when you do it this way), take the output from your intermediate classifiers and feed them as features to your final classifier. Even better, switch to a multi-layer Neural Net where your inputs represent inputs to the intermediates, the (first) hidden layer represents outputs to the intermediate problem, and subsequent layer(s) represent the final decision you want. This way you get the benefit of an intermediate layer, but its output is optimised to help with the final prediction rather than for accuracy in its own right (which I assume you don't really care about).
The correct generative model for these tests likely looks something like the following:
Generate an intelligence/competence score i
For each test t: generate pass/fail according to p_t(pass | i)
This is simplified, but I think it should illustrate tht you have a latent variable i on which these tests depend (and there's also structure between them, since presumably p_easy(pass|i) > p_medium(pass|i) > p_hard(pass|i); you could potentially model this as a logistic regression with a continuous 'hardness' feature). I suspect what you're asking about is a way to do inference on some thresholding function of i, but you want to do it in a classification way rather than as a probabilistic model. That's fine, but without explicitly encoding the latent variable and the structure between the tests it's going to be hard (and no average of the probabilities will account for the missing structure).
I hope that helps---if I've made assumptions that aren't justified, please feel free to correct.
I am hand tagging twitter messages as Positive, Negative, Neutral. I am try to appreciate is there some logic one can use to identify of the training set what proportion of message should be positive / negative and neutral ?
So for e.g. if I am training a Naive Bayes classifier with 1000 twitter messages should the proportion of pos : neg : neutral be 33 % : 33% : 33% or should it be 25 % : 25 % : 50 %
Logically in my head it seems that I i train (i.e. give more samples for neutral) that the system would be better at identifying neutral sentences then whether they are positive or negative - is that true ? or I am missing some theory here ?
Thanks
Rahul
The problem you're referring to is known as the imbalance problem. Many machine learning algorithms perform badly when confronted with imbalanced training data, i.e. when the instances of one class heavily outnumber those of the other class. Read this article to get a good overview of the problem and how to approach it. For techniques like naive bayes or decision trees it is always a good idea to balance your data somehow, e.g. by random oversampling (explained in the references paper). I disagree with mjv's suggestion to have a training set match the proportions in the real world. This may be appropriate in some cases but I'm quite confident it's not in your setting. For a classification problem like the one you describe, the more the sizes of the class sets differ, the more most ML algorithms will have problems discriminating the classes properly. However, you can always use the information about which class is the largest in reality by taking it as a fallback such that when the classifier's confidence for a particular instance is low or this instance couldn't be classified at all, you would assign it the largest class.
One further remark: finding the positivity/negativity/neutrality in Twitter messages seems to me to be a question of degree. As such, it may be viewes as a regression rather than a classification problem, i.e. instead of a three class scheme you perhaps may want calculate a score which tells you how positive/negative the message is.
There are many other factors... but an important one (in determining a suitable ratio and volume of training data) is the expected distribution of each message category (Positive, Neutral, Negative) in the real world. Effectively, a good baseline for the training set (and the control set) is
[qualitatively] as representative as possible of the whole "population"
[quantitatively] big enough that measurements made from such sets is statistically significant.
The effect of the [relative] abundance of a certain category of messages in the training set is hard to determine; it is in any case a lesser factor -or rather one that is highly sensitive to- other factors. Improvements in the accuracy of the classifier, as a whole, or with regards to a particular category, is typically tied more to the specific implementation of the classifier (eg. is it Bayesian, what are the tokens, are noise token eliminated, is proximity a factor, are we using bi-grams etc...) than to purely quantitative characteristics of the training set.
While the above is generally factual but moderately helpful for the selection of the training set's size and composition, there are ways of determining, post facto, when an adequate size and composition of training data has been supplied.
One way to achieve this is to introduce a control set, i.e. one manually labeled but that is not part of the training set and to measure for different test runs with various subsets of the training set, the recall and precision obtained for each category (or some similar accuracy measurements), for this the classification of the control set. When these measurements do not improve or degrade, beyond what's statistically representative, the size and composition of the training [sub-]set is probably the right one (unless it is an over-fitting set :-(, but that's another issue altogether... )
This approach, implies that one uses a training set that could be 3 to 5 times the size of the training subset effectively needed, so that one can build, randomly (within each category), many different subsets for the various tests.