I do some feature selection by removing correlated variables and backwards elimination. However, after all that is done as a test I threw in a random variable, and then trained logistic regression, random forest and XGBoost. All 3 models have the feature importance of the random feature as greater than 0. First, how can that be? Second, all models have it ranked toward the bottom, but it's not the lowest feature. Is this a valid step for another round of feature selection -i.e. remove all those who score below the random feature?
The random feature is created with
model_data['rand_feat'] = random.randint(100, size=(model_data.shape[0]))
This can happen, What random is the number you sample, but this random sampling can still generate a pattern by chance. I dont know whether you are doing classification or regression but lets consider the simple example of binary classification. We have class 1 and 0 and 1000 data point from each. When you sample a random number for each data point, it can happen that for example a majority of class 1 gets some value higher than 50, whereas majority of class 0 gets a random number smaller than 50.
So in the end effect, this might result into some pattern. So I would guess everytime you run your code the random feature importance changes. It is always ranked low because it is very unlikely that a good pattern is generated(e.g all 1s get higher than 50 and all 0s get lower than 50).
Finally, yes you should consider to drop the features with low value
I agree with berkay's answer that a random variable can have patterns that are by chance associated to your outcome variable. Secondly, I will neither include random variable in model building nor as my filtering threshold because if random variable has by chance significant or nearly significant association to the outcome it will suppress the expression of important features of original data and you probably end up losing those important features.
In early phase of model development I always include two random variables.
For me it is like a 'sanity check' since these are in effect junk variables or junk features.
If any of my features are worse in importance than the junk features then that is a warning sign that I need to look more carefully at the worth* of those features or to do some better feature engineering.
For example what does theory suggest about the inclusion of those features?
Related
I'm working on the heart attack analysis on Kaggle in python.
I am a beginner and I'm trying to figure whether it's still necessary to one-hot-encode or LableEncode these features. I see so many people encoding the values for this project, but I'm confused because everything already looks scaled (apart from age, thalach, oldpeak and slope).
age: age in years
sex: (1 = male; 0 = female)
cp: ordinal values 1-4
thalach: maximum heart rate achieved
exang: (1 = yes; 0 = no)
oldpeak: depression induced by exercise
slope: the slope of the peak exercise
ca: values (0-3)
thal: ordinal values 0-3
target: 0= less chance, 1= more chance
Would you say it's still necessary to one-hot-encode, or should I just use a StandardScaler straight away?
I've seen many people encode the whole dataset for this project, but it makes no sense to me to do so. Please confirm if only using StandardScaler would be enough?
When you apply StandardScaler, the columns would have values in the same range. That helps models to keep weights under bound and gradient descent will not shoot off when converging. This will help the model converge faster.
Independently, in order to decide between Ordinal values and One hot encoding, consider if the column values are similar or different based on the distance between them. If yes, then choose ordinal values. If you know the hierarchy of the category, then you can manually assign the ordinal values. Otherwise, you should use LabelEncoder. It seems like the heart attack data is already given with ordinal values manually assigned. For example, higher chest pain = 4.
Also, it is important to refer to notebooks that perform better. Take a look at the one below for reference.
95% Accuracy - https://www.kaggle.com/code/abhinavgargacb/heart-attack-eda-predictor-95-accuracy-score
I am trying to generate a model that uses several physico-chemical properties of a molecule (incl. number of atoms, number of rings, volume, etc.) to predict a numeric value Y. I would like to use PLS Regression, and I understand that standardization is very important here. I am programming in Python, using scikit-learn. The type and range for the features varies. Some are int64 while other are float. Some features generally have small (positive or negative) values, while other have very large value. I have tried using various scalers (e.g. standard scaler, normalize, minmax scaler, etc.). Yet, the R2/Q2 are still low. I have a few questions:
Is it possible that by scaling, some of the very important features lose their significance, and thus contribute less to explaining the variance of the response variable?
If yes, if I identify some important features (by expert knowledge), is it OK to scale other features but those? Or scale the important features only?
Some of the features, although not always correlated, have values that are in a similar range (e.g. 100-400), compared to others (e.g. -1 to 10). Is it possible to scale only a specific group of features that are within the same range?
The whole idea of scaling is to make models more robust to analysis on features space. For example, if you have 2 features as 5 Kg and 5000 gm, we know both are same, but for some algorithm, which are sensitive to metric space such as KNN, PCA etc, they will be more weighted towards second features, so scaling must be done for these algos.
Now coming to your question,
Scaling doesn't effect the significance of features. As i explained above, it helps in better analysis of data.
No, you should not do, reason explained above.
If you want to include domain knowledge in your model, you can use it as prior information. In short, for linear model, this is same as regularization. It has very good features. if you think, you have many useless-features, you can use L1 regularization, which creates sparse effect on features space, which is nothing but assign 0 weight to useless features. Here is the link for more-info.
One more point, some method such as tree based model doesn't need scaling, In last, it mostly depend on the model, you choose.
Lose significance? Yes. Contribute less? No.
No, it's not OK. It's either all or nothing.
No. The idea of scaling is not to decrease / increase significance / effect of a variable. It's to transform all variables to a common scale that can be interpreted.
I feel very confused with the following syntax in jags, for example,
n.iter=100,000
thin=100
n.adapt=100
update(model,1000,progress.bar = "none")
Currently I think
n.adapt=100 means you set the first 100 draws as burn-in,
n.iter=100,000 means the MCMC chain has 100,000 iterations including the burn-in,
I have checked the explanation for this question a lot of time but still not sure whether my interpretation about n.iter and n.adapt is correct and how to understand update() and thinning.
Could anyone explain to me?
This answer is based on the package rjags, which takes an n.adapt argument. First I will discuss the meanings of adaptation, burn-in, and thinning, and then I will discuss the syntax (I sense that you are well aware of the meaning of burn-in and thinning, but not of adaptation; a full explanation may make this answer more useful to future readers).
Burn-in
As you probably understand from introductions to MCMC sampling, some number of iterations from the MCMC chain must be discarded as burn-in. This is because prior to fitting the model, you don't know whether you have initialized the MCMC chain within the characteristic set, the region of reasonable posterior probability. Chains initialized outside this region take a finite (sometimes large) number of iterations to find the region and begin exploring it. MCMC samples from this period of exploration are not random draws from the posterior distribution. Therefore, it is standard to discard the first portion of each MCMC chain as "burn-in". There are several post-hoc techniques to determine how much of the chain must be discarded.
Thinning
A separate problem arises because in all but the simplest models, MCMC sampling algorithms produce chains in which successive draws are substantially autocorrelated. Thus, summarizing the posterior based on all iterations of the MCMC chain (post burn-in) may be inadvisable, as the effective posterior sample size can be much smaller than the analyst realizes (note that STAN's implementation of Hamiltonian Monte-Carlo sampling dramatically reduces this problem in some situations). Therefore, it is standard to make inference on "thinned" chains where only a fraction of the MCMC iterations are used in inference (e.g. only every fifth, tenth, or hundredth iteration, depending on the severity of the autocorrelation).
Adaptation
The MCMC samplers that JAGS uses to sample the posterior are governed by tunable parameters that affect their precise behavior. Proper tuning of these parameters can produce gains in the speed or de-correlation of the sampling. JAGS contains machinery to tune these parameters automatically, and does so as it draws posterior samples. This process is called adaptation, but it is non-Markovian; the resulting samples do not constitute a Markov chain. Therefore, burn-in must be performed separately after adaptation. It is incorrect to substitute the adaptation period for the burn-in. However, sometimes only relatively short burn-in is necessary post-adaptation.
Syntax
Let's look at a highly specific example (the code in the OP doesn't actually show where parameters like n.adapt or thin get used). We'll ask rjags to fit the model in such a way that each step will be clear.
n.chains = 3
n.adapt = 1000
n.burn = 10000
n.iter = 20000
thin = 50
my.model <- jags.model(mymodel.txt, data=X, inits=Y, n.adapt=n.adapt) # X is a list pointing JAGS to where the data are, Y is a vector or function giving initial values
update(my.model, n.burn)
my.samples <- coda.samples(my.model, params, n.iter=n.iter, thin=thin) # params is a list of parameters for which to set trace monitors (i.e. we want posterior inference on these parameters)
jags.model() builds the directed acyclic graph and then performs the adaptation phase for a number of iterations given by n.adapt.
update() performs the burn-in on each chain by running the MCMC for n.burn iterations without saving any of the posterior samples (skip this step if you want to examine the full chains and discard a burn-in period post-hoc).
coda.samples() (from the coda package) runs the each MCMC chain for the number of iterations specified by n.iter, but it does not save every iteration. Instead, it saves only ever nth iteration, where n is given by thin. Again, if you want to determine your thinning interval post-hoc, there is no need to thin at this stage. One advantage of thinning at this stage is that the coda syntax makes it simple to do so; you don't have to understand the structure of the MCMC object returned by coda.samples() and thin it yourself. The bigger advantage to thinning at this stage is realized if n.iter is very large. For example, if autocorrelation is really bad, you might run 2 million iterations and save only every thousandth (thin=1000). If you didn't thin at this stage, you (and your RAM) would need to manipulate an object with three chains of two million numbers each. But by thinning as you go, the final object only has 2 thousand numbers in each chain.
Let's say I have a user search query which looks like:
"the happy bunny"
I have already computed tf-idf and have something like this (following are made up example values) for each document in which I am searching (of coures the idf is always the same):
tf idf score
the 0.06 1 0.06 * 1 = 0.06
happy 0.002 20 0.002 * 20 = 0.04
bunny 0.0005 60 0.0005 * 60 = 0.03
I have two questions with what to do next.
Firstly, the still has the highest score, even though it is adjusted for rarity by idf, still it's not exactly important - do you think I should square the idf values to weight in terms of rare words, or would this give bad results? Otherwise I'm worried that the is getting equal importance to happy and bunny, and it should be obvious that bunny is the most important word in the search. As long as rare always equals important then it would be always a good idea to weight in terms of rarity, but if that is not always the case then doing so could really mess up the results.
Secondly and more importantly: what is the best/preferred method for combining the scores for each word together to give each document a single score that represents how well it reflects the entire search query? I was thinking of adding them, but it has become apparent that that is going to give higher priority to a document containing 10,000 happy but only 1 bunny instead of another document with 500 happy and 500 bunny (which would be a better match).
First, make sure that you are computing the correct TF-IDF values. As others have pointed they do not look right. TF is relative to specific documents, and we often do not need to compute them for queries (since raw term frequency is almost always 1 in queries). There are different types of TF functions to pick from (check the Wikipedia page on tf-idf, it has a good coverage). Log Normalisation is common and the most efficient scheme, since it saves an extra disk access to get the respective document's total frequency maxF that is needed for something like Double Normalisation. When you are dealing with large volumes of documents this can be expensive, especially if you can't bring these into memory. A bit of insight on inverted files can go a long way in understanding some of the underlying complexities. Log normalisation is efficient and is a non-linear function, therefore better than raw frequency.
Once you are certain on your weighting scheme, then you may want to consider a stop list to get rid of very common/noisy words. These do not contribute to the rank of documents. It is generally recommended to use a stop list of high frequency, very common words. Do a search and you will find many available, including the one that Lucene uses.
The remaining lies on your ranking strategy and that will depend on your implementation/model. The vector space model (VSM) is simple and readily available with libraries like Lucene, Lemur, etc. VSM computes the Dot product or scalar of the weights of common terms between the query and a document. Term weights are normalised via vector length normalisation (which solves your second question), and the result of applying the model is a value between 0 and 1. This is also justified/interpreted as the Cosine of the angle between two vectors in a planar graph, or the Euclidean distance divided by the Euclidean vector length of two vectors.
One of the earliest comprehensive studies on weighting schemes and ranking with VSM is an article by Salton (pdf) and is a good read if you are interested in Information Retrieval. A bit outdated perhaps (notice how log normalisation is not mentioned in the article).
Your best read I believe is the book Introduction to Information Retrieval by Christopher Manning. It will take you through everything that you need to know, from indexing to ranking schemes, etc. A bit lacking on ranking models (does not cover some of the more complex probabilistic approaches).
You should reconsider your TF and IDF values, they do not look correct. The TF value is usually just how often the word occurs, so if the word "the" appeared 20 times it's tf value would be 20. A word like "the" should have a very low IDF value (possibly around 4 decimal places, 0.000...).
You could use stop word removal if word like the are not necessary, they would be removed rather than just given a low score.
A vector space model could be used for this.
can you compute tf-idf for amalgamated terms? That is, you first generate a sentiment that considers each of its component as equal before treating the sentiment as a single term for which you now compute the tf-idf
I have a trading strategy on the foreign exchange market that I am attempting to improve upon.
I have a huge table (100k+ rows) that represent every possible trade in the market, the type of trade (buy or sell), the profit/loss after that trade closed, and 10 or so additional variables that represent various market measurements at the time of trade-opening.
I am trying to find out if any of these 10 variables are significantly related to the profits/losses.
For example, imagine that variable X ranges from 50 to -50.
The average value of X for a buy order is 25, and for a sell order is -25.
If most profitable buy orders have a value of X > 25, and most profitable sell orders have a value of X < -25 then I would consider the relationship of X-to-profit as significant.
I would like a good starting point for this. I have installed RapidMiner 5 in case someone can give me a specific recommendation for that.
A Decision Tree is perhaps the best place to begin.
The tree itself is a visual summary of feature importance ranking (or significant variables as phrased in the OP).
gives you a visual representation of the entire
classification/regression analysis (in the form of a binary tree),
which distinguishes it from any other analytical/statistical
technique that i am aware of;
decision tree algorithms require very little pre-processing on your data, no normalization, no rescaling, no conversion of discrete variables into integers (eg, Male/Female => 0/1); they can accept both categorical (discrete) and continuous variables, and many implementations can handle incomplete data (values missing from some of the rows in your data matrix); and
again, the tree itself is a visual summary of feature importance ranking
(ie, significant variables)--the most significant variable is the
root node, and is more significant than the two child nodes, which in
turn are more significant than their four combined children. "significance" here means the percent of variance explained (with respect to some response variable, aka 'target variable' or the thing
you are trying to predict). One proviso: from a visual inspection of
a decision tree you cannot distinguish variable significance from
among nodes of the same rank.
If you haven't used them before, here's how Decision Trees work: the algorithm will go through every variable (column) in your data and every value for each variable and split your data into two sub-sets based on each of those values. Which of these splits is actually chosen by the algorithm--i.e., what is the splitting criterion? The particular variable/value combination that "purifies" the data the most (i.e., maximizes the information gain) is chosen to split the data (that variable/value combination is usually indicated as the node's label). This simple heuristic is just performed recursively until the remaining data sub-sets are pure or further splitting doesn't increase the information gain.
What does this tell you about the "importance" of the variables in your data set? Well importance is indicated by proximity to the root node--i.e., hierarchical level or rank.
One suggestion: decision trees handle both categorical and discrete data usually without problem; however, in my experience, decision tree algorithms always perform better if the response variable (the variable you are trying to predict using all other variables) is discrete/categorical rather than continuous. It looks like yours is probably continuous, in which case in would consider discretizing it (unless doing so just causes the entire analysis to be meaningless). To do this, just bin your response variable values using parameters (bin size, bin number, and bin edges) meaningful w/r/t your problem domain--e.g., if your r/v is comprised of 'continuous values' from 1 to 100, you might sensibly bin them into 5 bins, 0-20, 21-40, 41-60, and so on.
For instance, from your Question, suppose one variable in your data is X and it has 5 values (10, 20, 25, 50, 100); suppose also that splitting your data on this variable with the third value (25) results in two nearly pure subsets--one low-value and one high-value. As long as this purity were higher than for the sub-sets obtained from splitting on the other values, the data would be split on that variable/value pair.
RapidMiner does indeed have a decision tree implementation, and it seems there are quite a few tutorials available on the Web (e.g., from YouTube, here and here). (Note, I have not used the decision tree module in R/M, nor have i used RapidMiner at all.)
The other set of techniques i would consider is usually grouped under the rubric Dimension Reduction. Feature Extraction and Feature Selection are two perhaps the most common terms after D/R. The most widely used is PCA, or principal-component analysis, which is based on an eigen-vector decomposition of the covariance matrix (derived from to your data matrix).
One direct result from this eigen-vector decomp is the fraction of variability in the data accounted for by each eigenvector. Just from this result, you can determine how many dimensions are required to explain, e.g., 95% of the variability in your data
If RapidMiner has PCA or another functionally similar dimension reduction technique, it's not obvious where to find it. I do know that RapidMiner has an R Extension, which of course let's you access R inside RapidMiner.R has plenty of PCA libraries (Packages). The ones i mention below are all available on CRAN, which means any of the PCA Packages there satisfy the minimum Package requirements for documentation and vignettes (code examples). I can recommend pcaPP (Robust PCA by Projection Pursuit).
In addition, i can recommend two excellent step-by-step tutorials on PCA. The first is from the NIST Engineering Statistics Handbook. The second is a tutorial for Independent Component Analysis (ICA) rather than PCA, but i mentioned it here because it's an excellent tutorial and the two techniques are used for the similar purposes.