Neh*_*pta 3 r machine-learning r-caret pairwise.wilcox.test
如果我使用两种带插入符号的方法(NN 和 KNN),然后我想提供显着性检验,我该如何进行 wilcoxon 检验。
我提供的数据样本如下
structure(list(Input = c(25, 193, 70, 40), Output = c(150, 98,
27, 60), Inquiry = c(75, 70, 0, 20), File = c(60, 36, 12, 12),
FPAdj = c(1, 1, 0.8, 1.15), RawFPcounts = c(1750, 1902, 535,
660), AdjFP = c(1750, 1902, 428, 759), Effort = c(102.4,
105.2, 11.1, 21.1)), row.names = c(NA, 4L), class = "data.frame")
d=readARFF("albrecht.arff")
index <- createDataPartition(d$Effort, p = .70,list = FALSE)
tr <- d[index, ]
ts <- d[-index, ]
boot <- trainControl(method = "repeatedcv", number=100)
cart1 <- train(log10(Effort) ~ ., data = tr,
method = "knn",
metric = "MAE",
preProc = c("center", "scale", "nzv"),
trControl = boot)
postResample(predict(cart1, ts), log10(ts$Effort))
cart2 <- train(log10(Effort) ~ ., data = tr,
method = "knn",
metric = "MAE",
preProc = c("center", "scale", "nzv"),
trControl = boot)
postResample(predict(cart2, ts), log10(ts$Effort))
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
这里要如何表现wilcox.test()。
Warm regards
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
处理问题的一种方法是为 knn 和 NN 生成多个性能值,您可以使用统计测试来比较它们。这可以使用嵌套重采样来实现。
在嵌套重采样中,您将多次执行训练/测试分割并在每个测试集上评估模型。
例如,让我们使用 BostonHousing 数据:
library(caret)
library(mlbench)
data(BostonHousing)
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
为了简单起见,我们只为示例选择数字列:
d <- BostonHousing[,sapply(BostonHousing, is.numeric)]
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
据我所知,没有办法在插入符号中开箱即用地执行嵌套 CV,因此需要一个简单的包装器:
为嵌套 CV 生成外层折叠:
outer_folds <- createFolds(d$medv, k = 5)
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
让我们使用引导重采样作为内部重采样循环来调整超参数:
boot <- trainControl(method = "boot",
number = 100)
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
现在循环外部折叠并使用训练集执行超参数优化并在测试集上进行预测:
CV_knn <- lapply(outer_folds, function(index){
tr <- d[-index, ]
ts <- d[index,]
cart1 <- train(medv ~ ., data = tr,
method = "knn",
metric = "MAE",
preProc = c("center", "scale", "nzv"),
trControl = boot,
tuneLength = 10) #to keep it short we will just probe 10 combinations of hyper parameters
postResample(predict(cart1, ts), ts$medv)
})
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
从结果中仅提取 MAE:
sapply(CV_knn, function(x) x[3]) -> CV_knn_MAE
CV_knn_MAE
#output
Fold1.MAE Fold2.MAE Fold3.MAE Fold4.MAE Fold5.MAE
2.503333 2.587059 2.031200 2.475644 2.607885
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
例如,对 glmnet 学习者执行相同的操作:
CV_glmnet <- lapply(outer_folds, function(index){
tr <- d[-index, ]
ts <- d[index,]
cart1 <- train(medv ~ ., data = tr,
method = "glmnet",
metric = "MAE",
preProc = c("center", "scale", "nzv"),
trControl = boot,
tuneLength = 10)
postResample(predict(cart1, ts), ts$medv)
})
sapply(CV_glmnet, function(x) x[3]) -> CV_glmnet_MAE
CV_glmnet_MAE
#output
Fold1.MAE Fold2.MAE Fold3.MAE Fold4.MAE Fold5.MAE
3.400559 3.383317 2.830140 3.605266 3.525224
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
现在使用 比较两者wilcox.test。由于两个学习者的表现是使用相同的数据分割生成的,因此配对测试是合适的:
wilcox.test(CV_knn_MAE,
CV_glmnet_MAE,
paired = TRUE)
Run Code Online (Sandbox Code Playgroud)
如果比较两种以上的算法,可以使用Friedman.test