Part (a): Numerical and Graphical Summaries
library(ISLR2)
summary(Weekly)
## Year Lag1 Lag2 Lag3
## Min. :1990 Min. :-18.1950 Min. :-18.1950 Min. :-18.1950
## 1st Qu.:1995 1st Qu.: -1.1540 1st Qu.: -1.1540 1st Qu.: -1.1580
## Median :2000 Median : 0.2410 Median : 0.2410 Median : 0.2410
## Mean :2000 Mean : 0.1506 Mean : 0.1511 Mean : 0.1472
## 3rd Qu.:2005 3rd Qu.: 1.4050 3rd Qu.: 1.4090 3rd Qu.: 1.4090
## Max. :2010 Max. : 12.0260 Max. : 12.0260 Max. : 12.0260
## Lag4 Lag5 Volume Today
## Min. :-18.1950 Min. :-18.1950 Min. :0.08747 Min. :-18.1950
## 1st Qu.: -1.1580 1st Qu.: -1.1660 1st Qu.:0.33202 1st Qu.: -1.1540
## Median : 0.2380 Median : 0.2340 Median :1.00268 Median : 0.2410
## Mean : 0.1458 Mean : 0.1399 Mean :1.57462 Mean : 0.1499
## 3rd Qu.: 1.4090 3rd Qu.: 1.4050 3rd Qu.:2.05373 3rd Qu.: 1.4050
## Max. : 12.0260 Max. : 12.0260 Max. :9.32821 Max. : 12.0260
## Direction
## Down:484
## Up :605
##
##
##
##
cor(Weekly[, -9])
## Year Lag1 Lag2 Lag3 Lag4
## Year 1.00000000 -0.032289274 -0.03339001 -0.03000649 -0.031127923
## Lag1 -0.03228927 1.000000000 -0.07485305 0.05863568 -0.071273876
## Lag2 -0.03339001 -0.074853051 1.00000000 -0.07572091 0.058381535
## Lag3 -0.03000649 0.058635682 -0.07572091 1.00000000 -0.075395865
## Lag4 -0.03112792 -0.071273876 0.05838153 -0.07539587 1.000000000
## Lag5 -0.03051910 -0.008183096 -0.07249948 0.06065717 -0.075675027
## Volume 0.84194162 -0.064951313 -0.08551314 -0.06928771 -0.061074617
## Today -0.03245989 -0.075031842 0.05916672 -0.07124364 -0.007825873
## Lag5 Volume Today
## Year -0.030519101 0.84194162 -0.032459894
## Lag1 -0.008183096 -0.06495131 -0.075031842
## Lag2 -0.072499482 -0.08551314 0.059166717
## Lag3 0.060657175 -0.06928771 -0.071243639
## Lag4 -0.075675027 -0.06107462 -0.007825873
## Lag5 1.000000000 -0.05851741 0.011012698
## Volume -0.058517414 1.00000000 -0.033077783
## Today 0.011012698 -0.03307778 1.000000000
pairs(Weekly)
The pattern: Increasing Volume over time (Year). The correlation
between Year and Volume is 0.8419 which is highly positive.
Part (b): Logistic Regression with Direction
glm.fit <- glm(Direction ~ Lag1 + Lag2 + Lag3 + Lag4 + Lag5 + Volume,
data = Weekly,
family = binomial)
summary(glm.fit)
##
## Call:
## glm(formula = Direction ~ Lag1 + Lag2 + Lag3 + Lag4 + Lag5 +
## Volume, family = binomial, data = Weekly)
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
## (Intercept) 0.26686 0.08593 3.106 0.0019 **
## Lag1 -0.04127 0.02641 -1.563 0.1181
## Lag2 0.05844 0.02686 2.175 0.0296 *
## Lag3 -0.01606 0.02666 -0.602 0.5469
## Lag4 -0.02779 0.02646 -1.050 0.2937
## Lag5 -0.01447 0.02638 -0.549 0.5833
## Volume -0.02274 0.03690 -0.616 0.5377
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## (Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)
##
## Null deviance: 1496.2 on 1088 degrees of freedom
## Residual deviance: 1486.4 on 1082 degrees of freedom
## AIC: 1500.4
##
## Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 4
It appears to have Lag2 to be statistically significant. The
p-val of Lag2 is 0.0296 and is lower than 0.05
Part (c): Confusion Matrix and Overall Fraction
glm.probs <- predict(glm.fit, type = "response")
glm.pred <- rep("Down", nrow(Weekly))
glm.pred[glm.probs > 0.5] <- "Up"
table(glm.pred, Weekly$Direction)
##
## glm.pred Down Up
## Down 54 48
## Up 430 557
mean(glm.pred == Weekly$Direction)
## [1] 0.5610652
When the market actually goes DOWN: Out of the 484 weeks where
the market went down, the model incorrectly predicted it would go “Up”
430 times. This is a Type I Error if we consider “Up” our positive
class. It has a massive error rate of roughly 89% (430/484) on down
weeks.
When the market actually goes UP: Out of the 605 weeks where the market went up, the model only incorrectly predicted “Down” 48 times. This is a Type II Error. It only has an error rate of about 8% (48/605) on up weeks.
Part (d): Training data period from 1990 to 2008
train <- (Weekly$Year < 2009)
Weekly.test <- Weekly[!train, ]
Direction.test <- Weekly$Direction[!train]
glm.fit2 <- glm(Direction ~ Lag2,
data = Weekly,
family = binomial,
subset = train)
glm.probs2 <- predict(glm.fit2, Weekly.test, type = "response")
glm.pred2 <- rep("Down", length(glm.probs2))
glm.pred2[glm.probs2 > 0.5] <- "Up"
table(glm.pred2, Direction.test)
## Direction.test
## glm.pred2 Down Up
## Down 9 5
## Up 34 56
mean(glm.pred2 == Direction.test)
## [1] 0.625
Part (e): LDA
library(MASS)
##
## Attaching package: 'MASS'
## The following object is masked from 'package:ISLR2':
##
## Boston
lda.fit <- lda(Direction ~ Lag2,
data = Weekly,
subset = train)
lda.pred <- predict(lda.fit, Weekly.test)
lda.class <- lda.pred$class
table(lda.class, Direction.test)
## Direction.test
## lda.class Down Up
## Down 9 5
## Up 34 56
mean(lda.class == Direction.test)
## [1] 0.625
Part (f): QDA
qda.fit <- qda(Direction ~ Lag2, data = Weekly, subset = train)
qda.class <- predict(qda.fit, Weekly.test)$class
table(qda.class, Direction.test)
## Direction.test
## qda.class Down Up
## Down 0 0
## Up 43 61
mean(qda.class == Direction.test)
## [1] 0.5865385
Part (g): KNN with K = 1
library(class)
train.X <- as.matrix(Weekly$Lag2[train])
test.X <- as.matrix(Weekly$Lag2[!train])
train.Direction <- Weekly$Direction[train]
set.seed(1)
knn.pred <- knn(train.X, test.X, train.Direction, k = 1)
table(knn.pred, Direction.test)
## Direction.test
## knn.pred Down Up
## Down 21 30
## Up 22 31
mean(knn.pred == Direction.test)
## [1] 0.5
Part (h): Naive Bayes
library(e1071)
## Warning: package 'e1071' was built under R version 4.4.3
nb.fit <- naiveBayes(Direction ~ Lag2, data = Weekly, subset = train)
nb.class <- predict(nb.fit, Weekly.test)
table(nb.class, Direction.test)
## Direction.test
## nb.class Down Up
## Down 0 0
## Up 43 61
mean(nb.class == Direction.test)
## [1] 0.5865385
Part (i): The best method
The best method might be Logistic
Regression and LDA with 62.5% of accuracy.