Whats the difference between
predict(rf, newdata=testSet)
and
predict(rf$finalModel, newdata=testSet)
i train the model with preProcess=c("center", "scale")
tc <- trainControl("repeatedcv", number=10, repeats=10, classProbs=TRUE, savePred=T)
rf <- train(y~., data=trainingSet, method="rf", trControl=tc, preProc=c("center", "scale"))
and i receive 0 true positives when i run it on a centered and scaled testSet
testSetCS <- testSet
xTrans <- preProcess(testSetCS)
testSetCS<- predict(xTrans, testSet)
testSet$Prediction <- predict(rf, newdata=testSet)
testSetCS$Prediction <- predict(rf, newdata=testSetCS)
but receive some true positives when i run it on an unscaled testSet. I have to use the rf$finalModel to receive some true postives on the centered and scaled testSet and the rf object on the unscaled...what am i missing?
edit
tests:
tc <- trainControl("repeatedcv", number=10, repeats=10, classProbs=TRUE, savePred=T)
RF <- train(Y~., data= trainingSet, method="rf", trControl=tc) #normal trainingData
RF.CS <- train(Y~., data= trainingSet, method="rf", trControl=tc, preProc=c("center", "scale")) #scaled and centered trainingData
on normal testSet:
RF predicts reasonable (Sensitivity= 0.33, Specificity=0.97)
RF$finalModel predicts bad (Sensitivity= 0.74, Specificity=0.36)
RF.CS predicts reasonable (Sensitivity= 0.31, Specificity=0.97)
RF.CS$finalModel same results like RF.CS (Sensitivity= 0.31, Specificity=0.97)
on centered and scaled testSetCS:
RF predicts very bad (Sensitivity= 0.00, Specificity=1.00)
RF$finalModel predicts reasonable (Sensitivity= 0.33, Specificity=0.98)
RF.CS predicts like RF (Sensitivity= 0.00, Specificity=1.00)
RF.CS$finalModel predicts like RF (Sensitivity= 0.00, Specificity=1.00)
so it seems as if the $finalModel needs the same format of trainingSet and testSet whereas the trained object accepts only uncentered and unscaled data, regardless of the selected preProcess parameter?
prediction code (where testSet is normal data and testSetCS is centered and scaled ):
testSet$Prediction <- predict(RF, newdata=testSet)
testSet$PredictionFM <- predict(RF$finalModel, newdata=testSet)
testSet$PredictionCS <- predict(RF.CS, newdata=testSet)
testSet$PredictionCSFM <- predict(RF.CS$finalModel, newdata=testSet)
testSetCS$Prediction <- predict(RF, newdata=testSetCS)
testSetCS$PredictionFM <- predict(RF$finalModel, newdata=testSetCS)
testSetCS$PredictionCS <- predict(RF.CS, newdata=testSetCS)
testSetCS$PredictionCSFM <- predict(RF.CS$finalModel, newdata=testSetCS)
Caret is a one-stop solution for machine learning in R. The R package caret has a powerful train function that allows you to fit over 230 different models using one syntax. There are over 230 models included in the package including various tree-based models, neural nets, deep learning and much more.
As its name suggests, it is used to train a model, that is, to apply an algorithm to a set of data and create a model which represents that dataset. The train() function has three basic parameters: Formula. Dataset. Method (or algorithm)
Frank,
This is really similar to your other question on Cross Validated.
You really need to
1) show your exact prediction code for each result
2) give us a reproducible example.
With the normal testSet
, RF.CS
and RF.CS$finalModel
should not be giving you the same results and we should be able to reproduce that. Plus, there are syntax errors in your code so it can't be exactly what you executed.
Finally, I'm not really sure why you would use the finalModel
object at all. The point of train
is to handle the details and doing things this way (which is your option) circumvents the complete set of code that would normally be applied.
Here is a reproducible example:
library(mlbench)
data(Sonar)
set.seed(1)
inTrain <- createDataPartition(Sonar$Class)
training <- Sonar[inTrain[[1]], ]
testing <- Sonar[-inTrain[[1]], ]
pp <- preProcess(training[,-ncol(Sonar)])
training2 <- predict(pp, training[,-ncol(Sonar)])
training2$Class <- training$Class
testing2 <- predict(pp, testing[,-ncol(Sonar)])
testing2$Class <- testing2$Class
tc <- trainControl("repeatedcv",
number=10,
repeats=10,
classProbs=TRUE,
savePred=T)
set.seed(2)
RF <- train(Class~., data= training,
method="rf",
trControl=tc)
#normal trainingData
set.seed(2)
RF.CS <- train(Class~., data= training,
method="rf",
trControl=tc,
preProc=c("center", "scale"))
#scaled and centered trainingData
Here are some results:
> ## These should not be the same
> all.equal(predict(RF, testing, type = "prob")[,1],
+ predict(RF, testing2, type = "prob")[,1])
[1] "Mean relative difference: 0.4067554"
>
> ## Nor should these
> all.equal(predict(RF.CS, testing, type = "prob")[,1],
+ predict(RF.CS, testing2, type = "prob")[,1])
[1] "Mean relative difference: 0.3924037"
>
> all.equal(predict(RF.CS, testing, type = "prob")[,1],
+ predict(RF.CS$finalModel, testing, type = "prob")[,1])
[1] "names for current but not for target"
[2] "Mean relative difference: 0.7452435"
>
> ## These should be and are close (just based on the
> ## random sampling used in the final RF fits)
> all.equal(predict(RF, testing, type = "prob")[,1],
+ predict(RF.CS, testing, type = "prob")[,1])
[1] "Mean relative difference: 0.04198887"
Max
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With