To deal with missing data, multiple imputation is the golden standard (Schafer & Graham, 2002). With GLMs, the models fitted on each imputed dataset can then be pooled. For non-parameteric methods like prediction rule ensembles, such pooling is more difficult. Little research has been performed on how to best deal with missing data in fitting prediction rule ensembles, but there are currently three options:
Listwise deletion. Although the default in pre(), this is certainly the least favorable option.
Single imputation: Perform only a single imputation and fit a prediction rule ensemble on this single dataset. This is likely better than listwise deletion, but likely inferior to multiple imputation, but easy to implement.
Multiple imputation approach by aggregating ensembles: Create multiple imputed datasets; fit a separate prediction rule ensemble to each of the imputed datasets; aggregate the ensembles into a single final ensemble. In terms of predictive accuracy, this approach will work well. It will, however, yield more complex ensembles than the former two approaches, and the next approach.
Combining mean imputation with the Missing-In-Attributes approach. According to Josse et al. (2019), mean imputation and the Missing-In-Attributes approaches perform well from a prediction perspective. Furthermore, they are computationally inexpensive.
Below, we provide examples for the first three approaches described above. In future versions of package pre, the mean imputation combined with MIA approach will be implemented.
For the examples, we will be predicting Wind speels using the airquality dataset (we focus on predicting the wind variable, because it does not have missing values, while variables Ozone and Solar.R do):
head(airquality)
nrow(airquality)
library("mice")
md.pattern(airquality, rotate.names = TRUE)
This option is the default of function pre():
library("pre")
set.seed(43)
airq.ens <- pre(Wind ~., data = airquality)## Warning in pre(Wind ~ ., data = airquality): Some observations have missing values and have been removed from the data. New sample size is 111.airq.ens##
## Final ensemble with cv error within 1se of minimum:
##
## lambda = 0.5076221
## number of terms = 2
## mean cv error (se) = 9.955139 (1.553628)
##
## cv error type : Mean-Squared Error
##
## rule coefficient description
## (Intercept) 9.034190233 1
## rule8 1.743533723 Ozone <= 45
## Ozone -0.006180118 6.75 <= Ozone <= 119With listwise deletion, only 111 out of 153 observations are retained. We obtain a rather sparse ensemble.
Here we apply single imputation by replacing missing values with the mean:
imp0 <- airquality
imp0$Solar.R[is.na(imp0$Solar.R)] <- mean(imp0$Solar.R, na.rm=TRUE)
imp0$Ozone[is.na(imp0$Ozone)] <- mean(imp0$Ozone, na.rm=TRUE)
set.seed(43)
airq.ens.imp0 <- pre(Wind ~., data = imp0)
airq.ens.imp0##
## Final ensemble with cv error within 1se of minimum:
##
## lambda = 0.2751573
## number of terms = 5
## mean cv error (se) = 9.757455 (0.7622478)
##
## cv error type : Mean-Squared Error
##
## rule coefficient description
## (Intercept) 10.48717592 1
## rule2 1.18133248 Ozone <= 45
## rule48 -0.56453456 Temp > 72 & Solar.R <= 258
## rule28 -0.51357673 Temp > 73 & Ozone > 22
## Ozone -0.01910646 7 <= Ozone <= 115.6
## rule40 0.01440472 Temp <= 81We obtain a larger number of rules, and slightly lower cross-validated mean squared error. However, this model cannot really be compared with the listwise deletion model, because they are computed over different sets of observations.
We perform multiple imputation by chained equations, using the predictive mean matching method. We generate 5 imputed datasets:
set.seed(42)
imp <- mice(airquality, m = 5)We create a list with imputed datasets:
imp1 <- complete(imp, action = "all", include = FALSE)We load the pre library:
library("pre")We create a custom function that fits PREs to several datasets contained in a list:
pre.agg <- function(datasets, ...) {
result <- list()
for (i in 1:length(datasets)) {
result[[i]] <- pre(datasets[[i]], ...)
}
result
}We apply the new function:
set.seed(43)
airq.agg <- pre.agg(imp1, formula = Wind ~ .)Note that we can used the ellipsis (...) to pass arguments to pre (see ?pre for an overview of arguments that can be specified).
We now define print, summary, predict and coef methods to extract results from the fitted ensemble. Again, we can use the ellipsis (...) to pass arguments to the print, summary, predict and coef methods of function pre (see e.g., ?pre:::print.pre for more info):
print.agg <- function(object, ...) {
result <- list()
sink("NULL")
for (i in 1:length(object)) {
result[[i]] <- print(object[[i]], ...)
}
sink()
print(result)
}
print.agg(airq.agg) ## results suppressed for space considerations
summary.agg <- function(object, ...) {
for (i in 1:length(object)) summary(object[[i]], ...)
}
summary.agg(airq.agg) ## results suppressed for space considerationsFor averaging over predictions, there is only one option for continuous outcomes. For non-continuous outcomes, we can average over the linear predictor, or over the predicted values on the scale of the response. I am not sure which would be more appropriate; the resulting predicted values will not be identical, but highly correlated, though.
predict.agg <- function(object, newdata, ...) {
rowMeans(sapply(object, predict, newdata = newdata, ...))
}
agg_preds <- predict.agg(airq.agg, newdata = airquality[1:4, ])
agg_preds## 1 2 3 4
## 10.42757 10.59272 10.93324 11.00302Finally, the coef method should return the averaged / aggregated final PRE. That is, it returns:
One averaged intercept;
All rules and linear terms, with their coefficients scaled by the number of datasets;
In presence of identical rules and linear terms, it aggregates those rules and their coefficients into one rule / term, and adds together the scaled coefficients.
Note that linear terms that do not have the same winsorizing points will not be aggregated. Note that the labels of rules and variables may overlap between different datasets (e.g., the label rule 12 may appear multiple times in the aggregated ensemble, but each rule 12 will have different conditions).
coef.agg <- function(object, ...) {
coefs <- coef(object[[1]], ...)
coefs <- coefs[coefs$coefficient != 0, ]
for (i in 2:length(object)) {
coefs_tmp <- coef(object[[i]], ...)
coefs <- rbind(coefs, coefs_tmp[coefs_tmp$coefficient != 0, ])
}
## Divide coefficients by the number of datasets:
coefs$coefficient <- coefs$coefficient / length(object)
## Identify identical rules:
duplicates <- which(duplicated(coefs$description))
for (i in duplicates) {
first_match <- which(coefs$description == coefs$description[i])[1]
## Add the coefficients:
coefs$coefficient[first_match] <-
coefs$coefficient[first_match] + coefs$coefficient[i]
}
## Remove duplicates:
coefs <- coefs[-duplicates, ]
## Check if there are- duplicate linear terms left and repeat:
duplicates <- which(duplicated(coefs$rule))
for (i in duplicates) {
first_match <- which(coefs$rule == coefs$rule[i])[1]
coefs$coefficient[first_match] <-
coefs$coefficient[first_match] + coefs$coefficient[i]
}
coefs <- coefs[-duplicates, ]
## Return results:
coefs
}
coef.agg(airq.agg)## rule coefficient description
## 65 (Intercept) 9.433571984 1
## 29 rule32 0.097328032 Temp > 73 & Ozone > 23
## 3 rule3 0.968746033 Ozone <= 45
## 7 rule7 0.040507812 Ozone > 14 & Solar.R <= 238
## 66 Ozone -0.006089757 7 <= Ozone <= 115.6
## 6 rule6 0.074835353 Ozone <= 59
## 25 rule26 -0.067771974 Temp > 63 & Ozone > 14
## 17 rule17 -0.038092316 Temp > 75 & Ozone > 47
## 1 rule1 0.090749273 Ozone <= 21
## 58 rule62 -0.277510244 Ozone > 45 & Solar.R <= 275
## 36 rule39 -0.046938032 Ozone > 14 & Solar.R <= 201
## 40 rule43 -0.035213431 Temp > 72 & Solar.R <= 255
## 51 rule5 0.031821453 Ozone <= 52
## 10 rule10 0.070056367 Temp <= 73
## 19 rule22 0.066962331 Ozone <= 63
## 14 rule15 0.001044073 Ozone <= 45 & Solar.R > 212We have obtained a final ensemble of 15 terms.
We compare performance using 10-fold cross validation. We evaluate predictive accuracy and the number of selected rules. We only evaluate accuracy for observations that have no missing values.
k <- 10
set.seed(43)
fold_ids <- sample(1:k, size = nrow(airquality), replace = TRUE)
observed <- c()
for (i in 1:k) {
## Separate training and test data
test <- airquality[fold_ids == i, ]
test <- test[!is.na(test$Ozone), ]
test <- test[!is.na(test$Solar.R), ]
observed <- c(observed, test$Wind)
}
preds <- data.frame(observed)
preds$LWD <- preds$SI <- preds$MI <- preds$observed
nterms <- matrix(nrow = k, ncol = 3)
colnames(nterms) <- c("LWD", "SI", "MI")
row <- 1
for (i in 1:k) {
if (i > 1) row <- row + nrow(test)
## Separate training and test data
train <- airquality[fold_ids != i, ]
test <- airquality[fold_ids == i, ]
test <- test[!is.na(test$Ozone), ]
test <- test[!is.na(test$Solar.R), ]
## Fit and evaluate listwise deletion
premod <- pre(Wind ~ ., data = train)
preds$LWD[row:(row+nrow(test)-1)] <- predict(premod, newdata = test)
tmp <- print(premod)
nterms[i, "LWD"] <- nrow(tmp) - 1
## Fit and evaluate single imputation
imp0 <- train
imp0$Solar.R[is.na(imp0$Solar.R)] <- mean(imp0$Solar.R, na.rm=TRUE)
imp0$Ozone[is.na(imp0$Ozone)] <- mean(imp0$Ozone, na.rm=TRUE)
premod.imp0 <- pre(Wind ~., data = imp0)
imp1 <- test
imp1$Solar.R[is.na(imp1$Solar.R)] <- mean(imp0$Solar.R, na.rm=TRUE)
imp1$Ozone[is.na(imp1$Ozone)] <- mean(imp0$Ozone, na.rm=TRUE)
preds$SI[row:(row+nrow(test)-1)] <- predict(premod.imp0, newdata = imp1)
tmp <- print(premod.imp0)
nterms[i, "SI"] <- nrow(tmp) - 1
## Perform multiple imputation
imp <- mice(train, m = 5)
imp1 <- complete(imp, action = "all", include = FALSE)
airq.agg <- pre.agg(imp1, formula = Wind ~ .)
preds$MI[row:(row+nrow(test)-1)] <- predict.agg(airq.agg, newdata = test)
nterms[i, "MI"] <- nrow(coef.agg(airq.agg)) - 1
}sapply(preds, function(x) mean((preds$observed - x)^2)) ## MSE## observed MI SI LWD
## 0.000000 9.462657 10.087872 9.824913sapply(preds, function(x) sd((preds$observed - x)^2)/sqrt(nrow(preds))) ## SE of MSE## observed MI SI LWD
## 0.000000 1.472118 1.538254 1.499660var(preds$observed) ## benchmark: Predict mean for all## [1] 12.65732Interestingly, we see that all three methods yield similar predictions and accuracy, and explain about 20% of variance in the response. Multiple imputation performed best, followed by listwise deletion, followed by single imputation. Taking into account the standard errors, however, these differences are not significant. Also, this simple evaluation on only a single dataset should not be taken too seriously. The better performance of multiple imputation does come at the cost of increased complexity:
boxplot(nterms, main = "Number of selected terms \nper missing-data method",
cex.main = .8)
In line with findings of Josse et al. (2019), we expect MIA to work better for rules than mean imputation. In future versions of package pre, we plan to implement MIA (for the rules) and combine it with mean imputation (for the linear terms).
In case you obtained different results, these results were obtained using the following:
sessionInfo()## R version 4.1.3 (2022-03-10)
## Platform: x86_64-w64-mingw32/x64 (64-bit)
## Running under: Windows 10 x64 (build 19044)
##
## Matrix products: default
##
## locale:
## [1] LC_COLLATE=C LC_CTYPE=Dutch_Netherlands.1252
## [3] LC_MONETARY=Dutch_Netherlands.1252 LC_NUMERIC=C
## [5] LC_TIME=Dutch_Netherlands.1252
##
## attached base packages:
## [1] stats graphics grDevices utils datasets methods base
##
## other attached packages:
## [1] pre_1.0.5 mice_3.14.0
##
## loaded via a namespace (and not attached):
## [1] shape_1.4.6 tidyselect_1.1.2 xfun_0.29 bslib_0.3.1
## [5] inum_1.0-4 purrr_0.3.4 splines_4.1.3 lattice_0.20-45
## [9] vctrs_0.3.8 generics_0.1.2 htmltools_0.5.2 yaml_2.2.1
## [13] utf8_1.2.2 survival_3.3-1 rlang_1.0.2 jquerylib_0.1.4
## [17] pillar_1.7.0 glue_1.6.2 withr_2.5.0 DBI_1.1.2
## [21] plotmo_3.6.1 foreach_1.5.2 lifecycle_1.0.1 stringr_1.4.0
## [25] MatrixModels_0.5-0 mvtnorm_1.1-3 codetools_0.2-18 evaluate_0.15
## [29] knitr_1.38 fastmap_1.1.0 fansi_1.0.3 highr_0.9
## [33] broom_0.7.12 Rcpp_1.0.8.3 backports_1.4.1 plotrix_3.8-2
## [37] jsonlite_1.8.0 TeachingDemos_2.12 digest_0.6.27 stringi_1.7.6
## [41] dplyr_1.0.8 grid_4.1.3 cli_3.2.0 tools_4.1.3
## [45] magrittr_2.0.2 sass_0.4.1 glmnet_4.1-3 tibble_3.1.6
## [49] Formula_1.2-4 crayon_1.5.1 tidyr_1.2.0 pkgconfig_2.0.3
## [53] partykit_1.2-15 libcoin_1.0-9 ellipsis_0.3.2 Matrix_1.4-1
## [57] assertthat_0.2.1 rmarkdown_2.13 rstudioapi_0.13 iterators_1.0.14
## [61] earth_5.3.1 rpart_4.1.16 R6_2.5.1 compiler_4.1.3Josse, J., Prost, N., Scornet, E., & Varoquaux, G. (2019). On the consistency of supervised learning with missing values. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.06931. https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06931
Miles, A. (2016). Obtaining predictions from models fit to multiply imputed data. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(1), 175-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115610345
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147