In this article I will discuss array indexing, operators, and composition in depth. If you work through this article you should end up with a very deep understanding of array indexing and the deep interpretation available when we realize indexing is an instance of function composition (or an example of permutation groups or semigroups: some very deep yet accessible pure mathematics).
A permutation of indices
In this article I will be working hard to convince you a very fundamental true statement is in fact true: array indexing is associative; and to simultaneously convince you that you should still consider this amazing (as it is a very strong claim with very many consequences). Array indexing respecting associative transformations should not be a-priori intuitive to the general programmer, as array indexing code is rarely re-factored or transformed, so programmers tend to have little experience with the effect. Consider this article an exercise to build the experience to make this statement a posteriori obvious, and hence something you are more comfortable using and relying on.
R‘s array indexing notation is really powerful, so we will use it for our examples. This is going to be long (because I am trying to slow the exposition down enough to see all the steps and relations) and hard to follow without working examples (say with
R), and working through the logic with pencil and a printout (math is not a spectator sport). I can’t keep all the steps in my head without paper, so I don’t really expect readers to keep all the steps in their heads without paper (though I have tried to organize the flow of this article and signal intent often enough to make this readable). Continue reading On indexing operators and composition
Authors: John Mount and Nina Zumel
In teaching thinking in terms of coordinatized data we find the hardest operations to teach are joins and pivot.
One thing we commented on is that moving data values into columns, or into a “thin” or entity/attribute/value form (often called “un-pivoting”, “stacking”, “melting” or “gathering“) is easy to explain, as the operation is a function that takes a single row and builds groups of new rows in an obvious manner. We commented that the inverse operation of moving data into rows, or the “widening” operation (often called “pivoting”, “unstacking”, “casting”, or “spreading”) is harder to explain as it takes a specific group of columns and maps them back to a single row. However, if we take extra care and factor the pivot operation into its essential operations we find pivoting can be usefully conceptualized as a simple single row to single row mapping followed by a grouped aggregation.
Please read on for our thoughts on teaching pivoting data. Continue reading Teaching pivot / un-pivot
I want to discuss a nice series of figures used to teach relational join semantics in R for Data Science by Garrett Grolemund and Hadley Wickham, O’Reilly 2016. Below is an example from their book illustrating an inner join:
Please read on for my discussion of this diagram and teaching joins. Continue reading Visualizing relational joins
Authors: John Mount and Nina Zumel.
It has been our experience when teaching the data wrangling part of data science that students often have difficulty understanding the conversion to and from row-oriented and column-oriented data formats (what is commonly called pivoting and un-pivoting).
Real trust and understanding of this concept doesn’t fully form until one realizes that rows and columns are inessential implementation details when reasoning about your data. Many algorithms are sensitive to how data is arranged in rows and columns, so there is a need to convert between representations. However, confusing representation with semantics slows down understanding.
In this article we will try to separate representation from semantics. We will advocate for thinking in terms of coordinatized data, and demonstrate advanced data wrangling in
Continue reading Coordinatized Data: A Fluid Data Specification
Nina Zumel recently mentioned the use of Laplace noise in “count codes” by Misha Bilenko (see here and here) as a known method to break the overfit bias that comes from using the same data to design impact codes and fit a next level model. It is a fascinating method inspired by differential privacy methods, that Nina and I respect but don’t actually use in production.
Nested dolls, Wikimedia Commons
Please read on for my discussion of some of the limitations of the technique, and how we solve the problem for impact coding (also called “effects codes”), and a worked example in R. Continue reading Laplace noising versus simulated out of sample methods (cross frames)
Recently Microsoft Data Scientist Bob Horton wrote a very nice article on ROC plots. We expand on this a bit and discuss some of the issues in computing “area under the curve” (AUC). Continue reading On calculating AUC
Nina Zumel prepared an excellent article on the consequences of working with relative error distributed quantities (such as wealth, income, sales, and many more) called “Living in A Lognormal World.” The article emphasizes that if you are dealing with such quantities you are already seeing effects of relative error distributions (so it isn’t an exotic idea you bring to analysis, it is a likely fact about the world that comes at you). The article is a good example of how to plot and reason about such situations.
I am just going to add a few additional references (mostly from Nina) and some more discussion on log-normal distributions versus Zipf-style distributions or Pareto distributions. Continue reading Relative error distributions, without the heavy tail theatrics
Writing a book is a sacrifice. It takes a lot of time, represents a lot of missed opportunities, and does not (directly) pay very well. If you do a good job it may pay back in good-will, but producing a serious book is a great challenge.
Nina Zumel and I definitely troubled over possibilities for some time before deciding to write Practical Data Science with R, Nina Zumel, John Mount, Manning 2014.
In the end we worked very hard to organize and share a lot of good material in what we feel is a very readable manner. But I think the first-author may have been signaling and preparing a bit earlier than I was aware we were writing a book. Please read on to see some of her prefiguring work. Continue reading Did she know we were writing a book?
Win-Vector LLC’s Dr. Nina Zumel has a three part series on Principal Components Regression that we think is well worth your time.
- Part 1: the proper preparation of data (including scaling) and use of principal components analysis (particularly for supervised learning or regression).
- Part 2: the introduction of y-aware scaling to direct the principal components analysis to preserve variation correlated with the outcome we are trying to predict.
- Part 3: how to pick the number of components to retain for analysis.
Continue reading Why you should read Nina Zumel’s 3 part series on principal components analysis and regression
It is often said that “R is its packages.”
One package of interest is ranger a fast parallel C++ implementation of random forest machine learning. Ranger is great package and at first glance appears to remove the “only 63 levels allowed for string/categorical variables” limit found in the Fortran randomForest package. Actually this appearance is due to the strange choice of default value
ranger::ranger() which we strongly advise overriding to
respect.unordered.factors=TRUE in applications. Continue reading On ranger respect.unordered.factors