I'm stuck with minimizing the st deviation of a dependent variable being time difference in days. The mean is OK, but the deviation is terrible. Tried clustering by independent variables and noticed quite dissimilar clusters. Now, wondering:
1) How I can actually apply this knowledge from clustering to the independent variable? The fact is that it was not included in initial clustering analysis, as I know it's dependent on the others.
2) Given that I know the variable of time difference is dependent, should I run clustering of it with the variable of cluster number being the result of my initial clustering analysis? Would it help?
3) Is there any other technique apart from clustering that can help me somehow categorize observation groups so that for each group I would have a separate mean of the independent variable with low st deviation?
Any help highly appreciated!
P.S. I was using Stata and SPSS, though I can also use SAS if you can share the code.
It sounds like you're going about this all wrong. Here are some relevant points to consider.
It's more important for the variance to be consistent across groups than it is to be low.
Clustering is (generally) going to organize individuals based on similar patterns of the clustering variables.
Fewer observations will generally not decrease the size of your standard deviation.
Any time you take continuous variables (either IV or DVs) and convert them into categorical variables, you are removing variance from the equation, and including more measurement error. Sometimes there are good reasons to do this, often times there are not.
Analysis should be theory-driven whenever possible, as data driven analysis (like what you're trying to accomplish here) is more likely to produce results that can't be reproduced or generalized to other data sets, samples, or populations.
Related
Terminology:
Component: PC
loading-score[i,j]: the j feature in PC[i]
Question:
I know the question regarding feature selection is asked several times here at StackOverflow (SO) and on other tech-pages, and it proposes different answers/discussion. That is why I want to open a discussion for the different solutions, and not post it as a general question since that has been done.
Different methods are proposed for feature selection using PCA: For instance using the dot product between the original features and the components (here) to get their correlation, a discussion at SO here suggests that you can only talk about important features as loading-scores in a component (and not use that importance in the input space), and another discussion at SO (which I cannot find at the moment) suggest that the importance for feature[j] would be abs(sum(loading_score[:,j]) i.e the sum of the absolute value of loading_score[i,j] for all i components.
I personally would think that a way to get the importance of a feature would be an absolute sum where each loading_score[i,j] is weighted by the explained variance of component i i.e
imp_feature[j]=sum_i (abs(loading_score[i,j])*explained_variance[i].
Well, there is no universal way to select features; it totally depends on the dataset and some insights available about the dataset. I will provide some examples which might be helpful.
Since you asked about PCA, initially it separates the whole dataset into two sets under which the variances. On the other ICA (Independent Component Analysis) is able to extract multiple features simultaneously. Look at this example,
In this example, we mix three independent signals and try to separate out them using ICA and PCA. In this case, ICA is doing it a better way than PCA. In general, if you search Blind Souce Separation (BSS) you may find more information about this. Besides, in this example, we know the independent components thus, separation is easy. In general, we do not know the number of components. Hence, you may have to guess based on some prior information about the dataset. Also, you may use LDA (Linear Discriminate Analysis) to reduce the number of features.
Once you extract PC components using any of the techniques, following way we can visualize it. If we assume, those extracted components as random variables i.e., x, y, z
More information about you may refer to this original source where I took about two figures.
Coming back to your proposition,
imp_feature[j]=sum_i (abs(loading_score[i,j])*explained_variance[i]
I would not recommend this way due to the following reasons:
abs(loading_score[i,j]) when we get absolute values you may loose positive or negative correlations of considered features. explained_variance[i] may be used to find the correlation between features, but multiplying does not make any sense.
Edit:
In PCA, each component has its explained variance. Explained variance is the ratio between individual component variance and total variance(sum of all individual components variances). Feature significance can be measured by magnitude of explained variance.
All in all, what I want to say, feature selection totally depends on the dataset and the significance of features. PCA is just one technique. Frist understand the properties of features and the dataset. Then, try to extract features. Hope this helps. If you can provide us with an exact example, we may provide more insights.
I've been asked to run a model using gradient boosting or random forest. So far so good, however, the only output that comes back in terms of variable importance is based on the number of times a variable was used as a branch rule. I've now been asked to basically get coefficients or somehow quantify the impact that the variables have on the target.
Is there a way to do this with a gradient boosting model? My other thoughts were to either use only the variables that were showed to be sued as branch rules in a regular decision tree or in a GLM or regular regression model.
Any help or ides would be appreciated!! Thanks so much!
Just to make certain there is not a misunderstanding: SAS implementation of decision tree/gradient boosting (at least in EM) uses Split-Based variable Importance.
Split-Based Importance does NOT count the number splits made.
It is the ratio of the reduction of sum-of-squares by one variable (specific the sum over all splits by this variable) in relation to the reduction of sum-of-squares achieved by all splits in the model.
If you are using surrogate rules, highly correlated variables will receive roughly the same value.
Community,
I am running a left- and right-censored tobit regression model. The dependent variable is the proportion of cash used in M&A transactions running from 0 to 1.
I assume heteroskedasticity to be prevalent due to the characteristics of my cross-sectional sample as well as the BPCW test for the LS regression model. In order to test the tobit specifications, I used bctobit. However, bctobit is not applicable for right-censored data.
This gives rise to the following question:
- Is there another user-written command to test for the tobit specifications with right- and left-censored data?
Thanks a lot for your efforts!
The most immediate question to me here is statistical. From what you say this approach is inadvisable, so how to implement it is immaterial.
I don't think Tobit makes much sense for variables that are defined to lie in an interval. Censoring to me implies that some high or low values might have been observed in principle, but in practice are recorded as less extreme values. It seems to me that logit or probit are the appropriate link functions for proportional responses, and in that Stata that means glm with e.g. logit link.
Regardless of that, do you regard linear dependence as expected here?
For an excellent concise review making this point, see http://www.stata-journal.com/sjpdf.html?articlenum=st0147
I have an ordered dependent variable (1 through 21) and continuous independent variables. I need to run the ordered logit model, clustering by firm and time, eliminating outliers with Studentized Residuals <-2.5 or > 2.5. I just know ologit command and some options for the command; however, I have no idea about how to do two way clustering and eliminate outliers with studentized residuals:
ologit rating3 securitized retained, cluster(firm)
As far as I know, two way clustering has only been extended to a few estimation commands (like ivreg2 from scc and tobit/logit/probit here). Eliminating outliers can easily be done on your own and there's no automated way of doing it.
Use the logit2.ado from the link Dimitriy gave (Mitchell Petersen's website) and modify it to use the ologit command. It's simple enough to do with a little trial and error. Good luck!
If you have a variable with 21 ordinal categories, I would have no problems treating that as a continuous one. If you want to back that up somehow, I wrote a paper on welfare measurement with ordinal variables, see DOI:10.1111/j.1475-4991.2008.00309.x. Then you can use ivreg2. You should be aware of all the issues involved with that estimator, in particular, that it implicitly assumed that the correlations are fully modeled by this two-way structure, and observations for firms i and j and times t and s are definitely uncorrelated for i!=j and t!=s. Sometimes, this is a strong assumption to make -- i.e., New York and New Jersey may be correlated in 2010, but New York 2010 is uncorrelated with New Jersey 2009.
I have no idea of what you might mean by ordinal outliers. Somebody must have piled a bunch of dissertation advice (or worse analysis requests) without really trying to make sense of every bit.
Please suggest me for any kind material about appropriate minimum support and confidence for itemset!
::i use apriori algorithm to search frequent itemset. i still don't know appropriate support and confidence for itemset. i wish to know what kinds of considerations to decide how big is the support.
The answer is that the appropriate values depends on the data.
For some datasets, the best value may be 0.5. But for some other datasets it may be 0.05. It depends on the data.
But if you set minsup =0 and minconf = 0, some algorithms will run out of memory before terminating, or you may run out of disk space because there is too many patterns.
From my experience, the best way to choose minsup and minconf is to start with a high value and then to lower them down gradually until you find enough patterns.
Alternatively, if you don't want to have to set minsup, you can use a top-k algorithms where instead of specifying minsup, you specify for example that you want the k most frequent rules. For example, k = 1000 rules.
If you are interested by top-k association rule mining, you can check my Java code here:
http://www.philippe-fournier-viger.com/spmf/
The algorithm is called TopKRules and the article describing it will be published next month.
Besides that, you need to know that there is many other interestingness measures beside the support and confidence: lift, all-confidence, ... To know more about this, you can read this article: "On selecting interestingness measures for association rules" and "A Survey of Interestingness Measures for Association Rules" Basically, all measures have some problems in some cases... no measure is perfect.
Hope this helps!
In any association rule mining algorithm, including Apriori, it is up to the user to decide what support and confidence values they want to provide. Depending on your dataset and your objectives you decide the minSup and minConf.
Obviously, if you set these values lower, then your algorithm will take longer to execute and you will get a lot of results.
The minimum support and minimum confidence parameters are a user preference. If you want a larger quantity of results (with lower statistical confidence), choose the parameters appropriately. In theory you can set them to 0. The algorithm will run, but it will take a long time, and the result will not be particularly useful, as it contains just about anything.
So choose them so that the result suit your needs. Mathematically, any value is "correct".