[R-sig-ME] Prediction/classification & variable selection

Voeten, C.C. c@c@voeten @end|ng |rom hum@|e|denun|v@n|
Thu May 14 21:41:00 CEST 2020

Dear Daniel,

Maybe my understanding of your situation is a bit too simplistic, but it sounds like you have a classic case of model selection / feature selection? There are many approaches for that. The easiest would be likelihood-ratio tests (or AIC, or BIC, or some other criterion). Start with a full model (or as full as you can get while still achieving convergence) containing all combinations of predictors, remove one term, see if the model improves according to your criterion... repeat until no terms are left to be eliminated. There are many packages that can automate this procedure for you. Another option could be lasso or ridge regression, which are commonly used for feature selection in the classification literature. I don't know if the lasso has been implemented for mixed models, but I know that package mgcv allows you to specify ridge penalties via (see the documentation related to the paraPen argument).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: R-sig-mixed-models <r-sig-mixed-models-bounces using r-project.org> On
> Behalf Of daniel.schlunegger using psy.unibe.ch
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 6:42 PM
> To: r-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org
> Subject: [R-sig-ME] Prediction/classification & variable selection
> Dear people of r-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org
> My name is Daniel Schlunegger, PhD-student in Psychology at the University
> of Bern, Switzerland.
> I’m new here and I wondered if somebody can help me.
> My goal is to predict subjects responses based on their previous responses in
> a one-interval two-alternative forced choice auditory discrimination task
> (Was it tone A or tone B sort of task). I’ve ran an experiment with 24
> subjects, each subject performed 1200 trials ( = 28800 trials). There are no
> missing values, all data is „clean“.
> The main idea of my work is:
> 1) Take subjects’ responses
> 2) Compute some statistics with those responses
> 3) Use these statistics to predict the next response (in a trial-by-trial fashion)
> Goal: Prediction / Classification (binary outcome)
> From three different learning models I derived three predictors. More
> clearly, three different sets of predictors. Within each set, there are n
> predictors (normally distributed). The predictors within each set are of very
> similar nature. I need a model with three predictors, one of each set of
> predictors. From each set of predictors, there is one predictor in the model:
> y ~ predictor1_n + predictor2_n + predictor3_n
> Problem: Theoretically it is possible (or rather probable) that for each subject
> a different combination of predictors (e.g. predictor1_2 + predictor2_1 +
> predictor3_3 vs. predictor1_1 + predictor2_2 + predictor3_3) results in a
> better classification accuracy. On the other hand I would like to keep the
> model as simple as possible. Let’s say, having the same three predictors for
> all subjects, while accounting for differences with a random intercept (1 |
> subject) or random intercept and random slope.
> I’ve seen a lot of work where they perform subject-level and group-level
> analyses, but I think that’s actually not correct, right?
> Do you have any suggestions how to do this the proper way? I assume that
> just running n * n * n different GLMM’s (lme4::glmer()) is not the proper way
> to do it. Because that is what I did so far, and then checked what combination
> gives me the best prediction.
> (I have another dataset from a slightly different version of the experiment.
> This dataset contains 91200 trials from 76 subjects, if number of observations
> is an issue here)
> Thanks for considering my request.
> Kind regards,
> Daniel Schlunegger
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-mixed-models using r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models

More information about the R-sig-mixed-models mailing list