Lab 3
data <-read.csv("~/Wholesale_customers_data.csv")
str(data)
## 'data.frame': 440 obs. of 8 variables:
## $ Channel : int 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 ...
## $ Region : int 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ...
## $ Fresh : int 12669 7057 6353 13265 22615 9413 12126 7579 5963 6006 ...
## $ Milk : int 9656 9810 8808 1196 5410 8259 3199 4956 3648 11093 ...
## $ Grocery : int 7561 9568 7684 4221 7198 5126 6975 9426 6192 18881 ...
## $ Frozen : int 214 1762 2405 6404 3915 666 480 1669 425 1159 ...
## $ Detergents_Paper: int 2674 3293 3516 507 1777 1795 3140 3321 1716 7425 ...
## $ Delicassen : int 1338 1776 7844 1788 5185 1451 545 2566 750 2098 ...
summary(data)
## Channel Region Fresh Milk
## Min. :1.000 Min. :1.000 Min. : 3 Min. : 55
## 1st Qu.:1.000 1st Qu.:2.000 1st Qu.: 3128 1st Qu.: 1533
## Median :1.000 Median :3.000 Median : 8504 Median : 3627
## Mean :1.323 Mean :2.543 Mean : 12000 Mean : 5796
## 3rd Qu.:2.000 3rd Qu.:3.000 3rd Qu.: 16934 3rd Qu.: 7190
## Max. :2.000 Max. :3.000 Max. :112151 Max. :73498
## Grocery Frozen Detergents_Paper Delicassen
## Min. : 3 Min. : 25.0 Min. : 3.0 Min. : 3.0
## 1st Qu.: 2153 1st Qu.: 742.2 1st Qu.: 256.8 1st Qu.: 408.2
## Median : 4756 Median : 1526.0 Median : 816.5 Median : 965.5
## Mean : 7951 Mean : 3071.9 Mean : 2881.5 Mean : 1524.9
## 3rd Qu.:10656 3rd Qu.: 3554.2 3rd Qu.: 3922.0 3rd Qu.: 1820.2
## Max. :92780 Max. :60869.0 Max. :40827.0 Max. :47943.0
top.n.custs <- function (data,cols,n=5) { #Requires some data frame and the top N to remove
idx.to.remove <-integer(0) #Initialize a vector to hold customers being removed
for (c in cols){ # For every column in the data we passed to this function
col.order <-order(data[,c],decreasing=T) #Sort column "c" in descending order (bigger on top)
#Order returns the sorted index (e.g. row 15, 3, 7, 1, ...) rather than the actual values sorted.
idx <-head(col.order, n) #Take the first n of the sorted column C to
idx.to.remove <-union(idx.to.remove,idx) #Combine and de-duplicate the row ids that need to be removed
}
return(idx.to.remove) #Return the indexes of customers to be removed
}
top.custs <-top.n.custs(data, cols=3:8, n=5)
length(top.custs) #How Many Customers to be Removed?
## [1] 19
data.rm.top<-data[-c(top.custs),] #Remove the Customers
set.seed(76964057) #Set the seed for reproducibility
k <-kmeans(data.rm.top[,-c(1,2)], centers=5) #Create 5 clusters, Remove columns 1 and 2
k$centers #Display cluster
## Fresh Milk Grocery Frozen Detergents_Paper Delicassen
## 1 4189.747 7645.639 11015.277 1335.145 4750.4819 1387.1205
## 2 16470.870 3026.491 4264.741 3217.306 996.5556 1319.7593
## 3 33120.163 4896.977 5579.860 3823.372 945.4651 1620.1860
## 4 5830.214 15295.048 23449.167 1936.452 10361.6429 1912.7381
## 5 5043.434 2329.683 2786.138 2689.814 652.8276 849.8414
# Our results indicate that cluster 1 and 4 seems to be heavy in groceries. For cluster 2, 3 & 5 are dominant in Fresh and lowest in detergents_paper.
rng<-2:20 #K from 2 to 20
tries <-100 #Run the K Means algorithm 100 times
avg.totw.ss <-integer(length(rng)) #Set up an empty vector to hold all of points
for(v in rng){ # For each value of the range variable
v.totw.ss <-integer(tries) #Set up an empty vector to hold the 100 tries
for(i in 1:tries){
k.temp <-kmeans(data.rm.top,centers=v) #Run kmeans
v.totw.ss[i] <-k.temp$tot.withinss#Store the total withinss
}
avg.totw.ss[v-1] <-mean(v.totw.ss) #Average the 100 total withinss
}
plot(rng,avg.totw.ss,type="b", main="Total Within SS by Various K",
ylab="Average Total Within Sum of Squares",
xlab="Value of K")
# Our graph shows that the change in the value of K seems to be more gradual beyond K=5 so we will consider that as the best value of K for our analysis.
wine <-read.csv("~/wine.csv")
str(wine)
## 'data.frame': 178 obs. of 14 variables:
## $ Wine : int 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...
## $ Alcohol : num 14.2 13.2 13.2 14.4 13.2 ...
## $ Malic.acid : num 1.71 1.78 2.36 1.95 2.59 1.76 1.87 2.15 1.64 1.35 ...
## $ Ash : num 2.43 2.14 2.67 2.5 2.87 2.45 2.45 2.61 2.17 2.27 ...
## $ Acl : num 15.6 11.2 18.6 16.8 21 15.2 14.6 17.6 14 16 ...
## $ Mg : int 127 100 101 113 118 112 96 121 97 98 ...
## $ Phenols : num 2.8 2.65 2.8 3.85 2.8 3.27 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.98 ...
## $ Flavanoids : num 3.06 2.76 3.24 3.49 2.69 3.39 2.52 2.51 2.98 3.15 ...
## $ Nonflavanoid.phenols: num 0.28 0.26 0.3 0.24 0.39 0.34 0.3 0.31 0.29 0.22 ...
## $ Proanth : num 2.29 1.28 2.81 2.18 1.82 1.97 1.98 1.25 1.98 1.85 ...
## $ Color.int : num 5.64 4.38 5.68 7.8 4.32 6.75 5.25 5.05 5.2 7.22 ...
## $ Hue : num 1.04 1.05 1.03 0.86 1.04 1.05 1.02 1.06 1.08 1.01 ...
## $ OD : num 3.92 3.4 3.17 3.45 2.93 2.85 3.58 3.58 2.85 3.55 ...
## $ Proline : int 1065 1050 1185 1480 735 1450 1290 1295 1045 1045 ...
wssplot <- function(wine, nc=15, seed=1234){
wss <- (nrow(wine)-1)*sum(apply(wine,2,var))
for (i in 2:nc){
set.seed(seed)
wss[i] <- sum(kmeans(wine, centers=i)$withinss)}
plot(1:nc, wss, type="b", xlab="Number of Clusters",
ylab="Within groups sum of squares")}
df <- scale(wine[-1])
wssplot(df)
library(NbClust)
set.seed(1234)
nc <- NbClust(df, min.nc=2, max.nc = 15, method = "kmeans")
## *** : The Hubert index is a graphical method of determining the number of clusters.
## In the plot of Hubert index, we seek a significant knee that corresponds to a
## significant increase of the value of the measure i.e the significant peak in Hubert
## index second differences plot.
##
## *** : The D index is a graphical method of determining the number of clusters.
## In the plot of D index, we seek a significant knee (the significant peak in Dindex
## second differences plot) that corresponds to a significant increase of the value of
## the measure.
##
## *******************************************************************
## * Among all indices:
## * 4 proposed 2 as the best number of clusters
## * 15 proposed 3 as the best number of clusters
## * 1 proposed 10 as the best number of clusters
## * 1 proposed 12 as the best number of clusters
## * 1 proposed 14 as the best number of clusters
## * 1 proposed 15 as the best number of clusters
##
## ***** Conclusion *****
##
## * According to the majority rule, the best number of clusters is 3
##
##
## *******************************************************************
barplot(table(nc$Best.n[1,]), xlab = "Number of Clusters", ylab = "Number of Criteria", main = "Number of Clusters Chosen by 26 Criteria")
# We used 3 different methodologies to compute the best value of K. using wssplot we constructed a clustering graph that indicated that K=3 could be the best value of K to use as the change beyond that point is gradual. In second method we used NbClust and provided min and max values of K, results show that K=3 may be the best value of K. In third method, we used a bar plot to find out the best value. From the resulting bar graph we can see that K=3 is the best value of K so we will use that our analysis.
set.seed(1234)
fit.km <- kmeans(df, 3, nstart=25)
(df_km <- table(wine$Wine, fit.km$cluster))
##
## 1 2 3
## 1 59 0 0
## 2 3 65 3
## 3 0 0 48
(Accuracy <- (sum(diag(df_km))/sum(df_km)*100))
## [1] 96.62921
# For our K-means analysis, we compared the three clusters we have with the actual target value to predict the accuracy of the model and then plotted the clusters using clustplot.
library(cluster)
clusplot(df, fit.km$cluster, main='2D representation of the Cluster solution',
color=TRUE, shade=TRUE,
labels=2, lines=0)
## Part 3
df_rpart <- data.frame(k=fit.km$cluster, df)
rdf <- df_rpart[sample(1:nrow(df_rpart)), ]
train <- rdf[1:(as.integer(.8*nrow(rdf))-1), ]
test <- rdf[(as.integer(.8*nrow(rdf))):nrow(rdf), ]
library(rpart)
fit <- rpart(k ~ ., data=train, method="class")
library(rattle)
## Rattle: A free graphical interface for data science with R.
## Version 5.1.0 Copyright (c) 2006-2017 Togaware Pty Ltd.
## Type 'rattle()' to shake, rattle, and roll your data.
fancyRpartPlot(fit)
pred <- predict(fit, test, type="class")
(news_tbl <- table(pred, test$k))
##
## pred 1 2 3
## 1 11 1 0
## 2 0 12 1
## 3 0 1 11
(Accuracy <- (sum(diag(news_tbl))/sum(news_tbl)*100))
## [1] 91.89189
# In our model, we used the K that we predictd in part 2 as our target variable and evaluated its impact on the rest of variables in dataset.
#Our decision tree results indicate that if the proline >=0.026 then the model with look for Phenols content. If phenol > 0.13 then its going to be wine 1 otherwise wine 3. If Proline less than 0.026 then the model will look for OD content. If OD content is >=-0.68 then its wine 2. If OD is <-0.68 then the model will look for color.int content. If color.int >= -0.36 then it will be wine 3 else wine 2. There are 3 instances of misclassification which means ~8% of the times model is going to misclassify the wine type (misclassification error). If we get more data we can train the model better the error may be low for future predictions.
wbcd <- read.csv("~/wisc_bc_data.csv", stringsAsFactors = FALSE)
str(wbcd)
## 'data.frame': 569 obs. of 32 variables:
## $ id : int 87139402 8910251 905520 868871 9012568 906539 925291 87880 862989 89827 ...
## $ diagnosis : chr "B" "B" "B" "B" ...
## $ radius_mean : num 12.3 10.6 11 11.3 15.2 ...
## $ texture_mean : num 12.4 18.9 16.8 13.4 13.2 ...
## $ perimeter_mean : num 78.8 69.3 70.9 73 97.7 ...
## $ area_mean : num 464 346 373 385 712 ...
## $ smoothness_mean : num 0.1028 0.0969 0.1077 0.1164 0.0796 ...
## $ compactness_mean : num 0.0698 0.1147 0.078 0.1136 0.0693 ...
## $ concavity_mean : num 0.0399 0.0639 0.0305 0.0464 0.0339 ...
## $ points_mean : num 0.037 0.0264 0.0248 0.048 0.0266 ...
## $ symmetry_mean : num 0.196 0.192 0.171 0.177 0.172 ...
## $ dimension_mean : num 0.0595 0.0649 0.0634 0.0607 0.0554 ...
## $ radius_se : num 0.236 0.451 0.197 0.338 0.178 ...
## $ texture_se : num 0.666 1.197 1.387 1.343 0.412 ...
## $ perimeter_se : num 1.67 3.43 1.34 1.85 1.34 ...
## $ area_se : num 17.4 27.1 13.5 26.3 17.7 ...
## $ smoothness_se : num 0.00805 0.00747 0.00516 0.01127 0.00501 ...
## $ compactness_se : num 0.0118 0.03581 0.00936 0.03498 0.01485 ...
## $ concavity_se : num 0.0168 0.0335 0.0106 0.0219 0.0155 ...
## $ points_se : num 0.01241 0.01365 0.00748 0.01965 0.00915 ...
## $ symmetry_se : num 0.0192 0.035 0.0172 0.0158 0.0165 ...
## $ dimension_se : num 0.00225 0.00332 0.0022 0.00344 0.00177 ...
## $ radius_worst : num 13.5 11.9 12.4 11.9 16.2 ...
## $ texture_worst : num 15.6 22.9 26.4 15.8 15.7 ...
## $ perimeter_worst : num 87 78.3 79.9 76.5 104.5 ...
## $ area_worst : num 549 425 471 434 819 ...
## $ smoothness_worst : num 0.139 0.121 0.137 0.137 0.113 ...
## $ compactness_worst: num 0.127 0.252 0.148 0.182 0.174 ...
## $ concavity_worst : num 0.1242 0.1916 0.1067 0.0867 0.1362 ...
## $ points_worst : num 0.0939 0.0793 0.0743 0.0861 0.0818 ...
## $ symmetry_worst : num 0.283 0.294 0.3 0.21 0.249 ...
## $ dimension_worst : num 0.0677 0.0759 0.0788 0.0678 0.0677 ...
wbcd <- wbcd[-1]
table(wbcd$diagnosis)
##
## B M
## 357 212
wbcd$diagnosis <- factor(wbcd$diagnosis, levels = c("B", "M"), labels = c("Benign", "Malignant"))
round(prop.table(table(wbcd$diagnosis)) * 100, digits = 1)
##
## Benign Malignant
## 62.7 37.3
normalize <- function(x) {
return ((x - min(x)) / (max(x) - min(x)))
}
wbcd_n <- as.data.frame(lapply(wbcd[2:31], normalize))
summary(wbcd_n)
## radius_mean texture_mean perimeter_mean area_mean
## Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000
## 1st Qu.:0.2233 1st Qu.:0.2185 1st Qu.:0.2168 1st Qu.:0.1174
## Median :0.3024 Median :0.3088 Median :0.2933 Median :0.1729
## Mean :0.3382 Mean :0.3240 Mean :0.3329 Mean :0.2169
## 3rd Qu.:0.4164 3rd Qu.:0.4089 3rd Qu.:0.4168 3rd Qu.:0.2711
## Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000
## smoothness_mean compactness_mean concavity_mean points_mean
## Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.00000 Min. :0.0000
## 1st Qu.:0.3046 1st Qu.:0.1397 1st Qu.:0.06926 1st Qu.:0.1009
## Median :0.3904 Median :0.2247 Median :0.14419 Median :0.1665
## Mean :0.3948 Mean :0.2606 Mean :0.20806 Mean :0.2431
## 3rd Qu.:0.4755 3rd Qu.:0.3405 3rd Qu.:0.30623 3rd Qu.:0.3678
## Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.00000 Max. :1.0000
## symmetry_mean dimension_mean radius_se texture_se
## Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.00000 Min. :0.0000
## 1st Qu.:0.2823 1st Qu.:0.1630 1st Qu.:0.04378 1st Qu.:0.1047
## Median :0.3697 Median :0.2439 Median :0.07702 Median :0.1653
## Mean :0.3796 Mean :0.2704 Mean :0.10635 Mean :0.1893
## 3rd Qu.:0.4530 3rd Qu.:0.3404 3rd Qu.:0.13304 3rd Qu.:0.2462
## Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.00000 Max. :1.0000
## perimeter_se area_se smoothness_se compactness_se
## Min. :0.00000 Min. :0.00000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.00000
## 1st Qu.:0.04000 1st Qu.:0.02064 1st Qu.:0.1175 1st Qu.:0.08132
## Median :0.07209 Median :0.03311 Median :0.1586 Median :0.13667
## Mean :0.09938 Mean :0.06264 Mean :0.1811 Mean :0.17444
## 3rd Qu.:0.12251 3rd Qu.:0.07170 3rd Qu.:0.2187 3rd Qu.:0.22680
## Max. :1.00000 Max. :1.00000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.00000
## concavity_se points_se symmetry_se dimension_se
## Min. :0.00000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.00000
## 1st Qu.:0.03811 1st Qu.:0.1447 1st Qu.:0.1024 1st Qu.:0.04675
## Median :0.06538 Median :0.2070 Median :0.1526 Median :0.07919
## Mean :0.08054 Mean :0.2235 Mean :0.1781 Mean :0.10019
## 3rd Qu.:0.10619 3rd Qu.:0.2787 3rd Qu.:0.2195 3rd Qu.:0.12656
## Max. :1.00000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.00000
## radius_worst texture_worst perimeter_worst area_worst
## Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.00000
## 1st Qu.:0.1807 1st Qu.:0.2415 1st Qu.:0.1678 1st Qu.:0.08113
## Median :0.2504 Median :0.3569 Median :0.2353 Median :0.12321
## Mean :0.2967 Mean :0.3640 Mean :0.2831 Mean :0.17091
## 3rd Qu.:0.3863 3rd Qu.:0.4717 3rd Qu.:0.3735 3rd Qu.:0.22090
## Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.00000
## smoothness_worst compactness_worst concavity_worst points_worst
## Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.00000 Min. :0.0000
## 1st Qu.:0.3000 1st Qu.:0.1163 1st Qu.:0.09145 1st Qu.:0.2231
## Median :0.3971 Median :0.1791 Median :0.18107 Median :0.3434
## Mean :0.4041 Mean :0.2202 Mean :0.21740 Mean :0.3938
## 3rd Qu.:0.4942 3rd Qu.:0.3025 3rd Qu.:0.30583 3rd Qu.:0.5546
## Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.00000 Max. :1.0000
## symmetry_worst dimension_worst
## Min. :0.0000 Min. :0.0000
## 1st Qu.:0.1851 1st Qu.:0.1077
## Median :0.2478 Median :0.1640
## Mean :0.2633 Mean :0.1896
## 3rd Qu.:0.3182 3rd Qu.:0.2429
## Max. :1.0000 Max. :1.0000
wbcd_train <- wbcd_n[1:469, ]
wbcd_test <- wbcd_n[470:569, ]
wbcd_train_labels <- wbcd[1:469, 1]
wbcd_test_labels <- wbcd[470:569, 1]
library(class)
wbcd_test_pred <- knn(train = wbcd_train, test = wbcd_test, cl=wbcd_train_labels, k = 21)
(wbcd_tbl <- table(wbcd_test_pred, wbcd_test_labels))
## wbcd_test_labels
## wbcd_test_pred Benign Malignant
## Benign 61 2
## Malignant 0 37
(Accuracy <- (wbcd_tbl[1]+wbcd_tbl[4])/sum(wbcd_tbl)*100)
## [1] 98
# our model has an accuracy of 98% showing 2 cases of misclassification where the tumor was predicted to be malignant but was actually benign.
news <- read.csv("~/OnlineNewsPopularity.csv")
newsShort <- data.frame(news$n_tokens_title, news$n_tokens_content, news$n_unique_tokens, news$n_non_stop_words, news$num_hrefs, news$num_imgs, news$num_videos, news$average_token_length, news$num_keywords, news$kw_max_max, news$global_sentiment_polarity, news$avg_positive_polarity, news$title_subjectivity, news$title_sentiment_polarity, news$abs_title_subjectivity, news$abs_title_sentiment_polarity, news$shares)
colnames(newsShort) <- c("n_tokens_title", "n_tokens_content", "n_unique_tokens", "n_non_stop_words", "num_hrefs", "num_imgs", "num_videos", "average_token_length", "num_keywords", "kw_max_max", "global_sentiment_polarity", "avg_positive_polarity", "title_subjectivity", "title_sentiment_polarity", "abs_title_subjectivity", "abs_title_sentiment_polarity", "shares")
newsShort$popular = rep('na', nrow(newsShort))
for(i in 1:39644) {
if(newsShort$shares[i] >= 1400) {
newsShort$popular[i] = "yes"}
else {newsShort$popular[i] = "no"}
}
newsShort$shares = newsShort$popular
#for(i in 1:39644) {
# if(newsShort$shares[i] >= 1400) {
# newsShort$shares[i] = "yes"}
# else {newsShort$shares[i] = "no"}
#cat("i=,",i," shares=",newsShort$shares[i],"\n")
#}
newsShort$shares <- as.factor(newsShort$shares)
newsShort <- newsShort[-18]
news_n <- as.data.frame(lapply(newsShort[1:16], normalize))
#news_rand <- news_n[order(runif(10000)), ]
#set.seed(12345)
#Split the data into training and test datasets
news_train <- news_n[1:9000, ]
news_test <- news_n[9001:10000, ]
news_train_labels <- newsShort[1:9000, 17]
news_test_labels <- newsShort[9001:10000, 17]
news_test_pred <- knn(train = news_train, test = news_test, cl=news_train_labels, k = 5)
(news_tbl <- table(news_test_pred, news_test_labels))
## news_test_labels
## news_test_pred no yes
## no 225 174
## yes 322 279
(Accuracy <- (news_tbl[1]+news_tbl[4])/sum(news_tbl)*100)
## [1] 50.4