knitr::opts_chunk$set( collapse = TRUE, comment = "#>", fig.path = "man/figures/vignette_conf_mat-", dpi = 92, fig.retina = 2 ) options(rmarkdown.html_vignette.check_title = FALSE)
When we have groups of observations (e.g. a participant ID), we are sometimes more interested in the overall prediction for the group than those at the observation-level.
Say we have a dataset with 10 observations per participant and a model that predicts whether a participant has an autism diagnosis or not. While the model will predict each of the 10 observations, it's really the overall prediction for the participant that we are interested in.
evaluate()
has two approaches to performing the evaluation on the ID level: averaging and voting.
In averaging, we simply average the predicted probabilities for the participant. This is the default approach as it maintains information about how certain our model is about its class prediction. That is, if all observations have a 60% predicted probability of an autism diagnosis, that should be considered differently than 90%.
In voting, we simply count the predictions of each outcome class and assign the class with the most predictions to the participant.
If 7 out of 10 of the observations are predicted as having no autism diagnosis, that becomes the prediction for the participant.
We will use the simple participant.scores
dataset as it has 3 rows per participant and a diagnosis column that we can evaluate predictions against. Let's add predicted probabilities and diagnoses and have a look:
library(cvms) library(knitr) # kable() library(dplyr) set.seed(74) # Prepare dataset data <- participant.scores %>% as_tibble() # Add probabilities and predicted classes data[["probability"]] <- runif(nrow(data)) data[["predicted diagnosis"]] <- ifelse(data[["probability"]] > 0.5, 1, 0) data %>% head(10) %>% kable()
We tell evaluate()
to aggregate the predictions by the participant
column with the mean
(averaging) method.
Note: It is assumed that the target class is constant within the IDs. I.e., that the participant has the same diagnosis in all observations.
ev <- evaluate( data = data, target_col = "diagnosis", prediction_cols = "probability", id_col = "participant", id_method = "mean", type = "binomial" ) ev
The Predictions
column contains the averaged predictions:
ev$Predictions[[1]] %>% kable()
Let's plot the confusion matrix as well:
# Note: If ev had multiple rows, we would have to # pass ev$`Confusion Matrix`[[1]] to # plot the first row's confusion matrix plot_confusion_matrix(ev)
We can have a better look at the metrics:
ev_metrics <- select_metrics(ev) ev_metrics %>% select(1:9) %>% kable(digits = 5) ev_metrics %>% select(10:14) %>% kable(digits = 5)
We can use the majority
(voting) method for the ID aggregation instead:
ev_2 <- evaluate( data = data, target_col = "diagnosis", prediction_cols = "probability", id_col = "participant", id_method = "majority", type = "binomial" ) ev_2
Now the Predictions
column looks as follows:
ev_2$Predictions[[1]] %>% kable()
In this case, the Predicted Class
column is identical to that in the averaging approach. We just don't have the probabilities to tell us, how sure the model is about that prediction.
If we have predictions from multiple models, we can group the data frame and get the results per model.
Let's duplicate the dataset and change the predictions. We then combine the datasets and add a model
column for indicating which of the data frames the observation came from:
# Duplicate data frame data_2 <- data # Change the probabilities and predicted classes data_2[["probability"]] <- runif(nrow(data)) data_2[["predicted diagnosis"]] <- ifelse(data_2[["probability"]] > 0.5, 1, 0) # Combine the two data frames data_multi <- dplyr::bind_rows(data, data_2, .id = "model") data_multi
We can now group the data frame by the model
column and run the evaluation again:
ev_3 <- data_multi %>% dplyr::group_by(model) %>% evaluate( target_col = "diagnosis", prediction_cols = "probability", id_col = "participant", id_method = "mean", type = "binomial" ) ev_3
The Predictions
for the second model looks as follows:
ev_3$Predictions[[2]] %>% kable()
'gaussian'
evaluationThis kind of ID aggregation is also available for the 'gaussian'
evaluation (e.g. for linear regression models), although only with the averaging approach. Again, it is assumed that the target value is constant for all observations by a participant (like the age
column in our dataset).
We add a predicted age
column to our initial dataset:
data[["predicted age"]] <- sample(20:45, size = 30, replace = TRUE)
We evaluate the predicted age, aggregated by participant:
ev_4 <- evaluate( data = data, target_col = "age", prediction_cols = "predicted age", id_col = "participant", id_method = "mean", type = "gaussian" ) ev_4
The Predictions
column looks as follows:
ev_4$Predictions[[1]] %>% kable()
On average, we predict participant 1
to have the age 35.66
.
If our targets are not constant within the IDs, we might be interested in the ID-level evaluation. E.g. how well it predicted the score for each of the participants.
We add a predicted score
column to our dataset:
data[["predicted score"]] <- round(runif(30, 10, 81))
Now, we group the data frame by the participant
column and evaluate the predicted scores:
data %>% dplyr::group_by(participant) %>% evaluate( target_col = "score", prediction_cols = "predicted score", type = "gaussian" )
Participant 4
has the lowest prediction error while participant 7
has the highest.
This approach is similar to what the most_challenging()
function does:
# Extract the ~20% observations with highest prediction error most_challenging( data = data, type = "gaussian", obs_id_col = "participant", target_col = "score", prediction_cols = "predicted score", threshold = 0.20 )
This concludes the vignette. If any elements are unclear you can leave feedback in a mail or in a GitHub issue :-)
Any scripts or data that you put into this service are public.
Add the following code to your website.
For more information on customizing the embed code, read Embedding Snippets.