We Keep Coding

<lifelines> Solving Cox Proportional Hazard after creating interaction variable with time

I am using lifelines package to do Cox Regression. After trying to fit the model, I checked the CPH assumptions for any possible violations and it returned some problematic variables, along with the suggested solutions.
One of the solution that I would like to try is the one suggested here:
https://lifelines.readthedocs.io/en/latest/jupyter_notebooks/Proportional%20hazard%20assumption.html#Introduce-time-varying-covariates
However, the example written here is using CoxTimeVaryingFitter which, unlike CoxPHFitter, does not have concordance score, which will help me gauge the model performance. Additionally, CoxTimeVaryingFitter does not have check assumption feature. Does this mean that by putting it into episodic format, all the assumptions are automatically satisfied?
Alternatively, after reading a SAS textbook on survival analysis, it seemed like their solution is to create the interaction term directly (multiplying the problematic variable with the survival time) without changing the format to episodic format (as shown in the link). This way, I was hoping to just keep using CoxPHFitter due to its model scoring capability.
However, after doing this alternative, when I call check_assumptions again on the model with the time-interaction variable, the CPH assumption on the time-interaction variable is violated.
Now I am torn between:
Using CoxTimeVaryingFitter without knowing what the model performance is (seems like a bad idea)
Using CoxPHFitter, but the assumption is violated on the time-interaction variable (which inherently does not seem to fix the problem)
Any help regarding to solve this confusion is greatly appreciated

Here is one suggestion:
If you choose the CoxTimeVaryingFitter, then you need to somehow evaluate the quality of your model. Here is one way. Use the regression coefficients B and write down your model. I'll write it as S(t;x;B), where S is an estimator of the survival, t is the time, and x is a vector of covariates (age, wage, education, etc.). Now, for every individual i, you have a vector of covariates x_i. Thus, you have the survival function for each individual. Consequently, you can predict which individual will 'fail' first, which 'second', and so on. This produces a (predicted) ranking of survival. However, you know the real ranking of survival since you know the failure times or times-to-event. Now, quantify how many pairs (predicted survival, true survival) share the same ranking. In essence, you would be estimating the concordance.
If you opt to use CoxPHFitter, I don't think it was meant to be used with time-varying covariates. Instead, you could use two other approaches. One is to stratify your variable, i.e., cph.fit(dataframe, time_column, event_column, strata=['your variable to stratify']). The downside is that you no longer obtain a hazard ratio for that variable. The other approach is to use splines. Both of these methods are explained in here.

Why random_state parameter is used in NMF and LDA algorithm ? What are the benefits of using random topics generated every time?

For Topic Modelling ,
Why random_state parameter is used in NMF and LDA algorithm ? What are the benefits of using random topics generated every time ?

The algorithms for both are stochastic - meaning they use randomness as a part of estimating a good answer. It's done that way to make it tractable, and in the case of LDA, the whole model is stochastic, providing you ideally with a probabilistic distribution (called "the posterior distribution") of answers, but instead providing a single, likely answer as an estimate.
So the answer is that using randomness in the algorithms makes a tremendously difficult problem much simpler and feasible to calculate in less than a hundred years.
If you're going to use them, I think it would do you well to study them, learn something of how they work, why they work. Using a tool that you don't understand is risky, as you don't really know what the result the tool provides actually means. One example is the numerors words in all "topics" with very low probability. The differences in these probabilities are actually meaningless - given a different sample from the posterior, you'd get different probabilities, ranked differently between words.

How to approach feature elimination?

I have been working on a couple of dataset to build predictive models based on them. However I am left a bit bewildered when its coming to elimination of features.
The first one is the Boston Housing dataset and the second is Bigmart Sales dataset. I will focus my question around these two however I would also appreciate relatively generalized answers too.
Boston Housing : I have constructed a correlation coefficient matrix and eliminated the features which has an absolute correlation coefficient of less than 0.50 with respect to the target variable medv. That is leaving me with three features. However, I also do understand that a correlation matrix can be highly deceptive and does not capture non-linear relationships and as a matter of fact features such as crim, indus etc does have non-linear relationship with medv and intuitively it simply does not feel correct to discard them right away.
Bigmart Sales : There are around 30+ features that is created after OneHotEncoding in Python. I have given a go to backward elimination method while I was constructing a linear regression model but I am not exactly sure how to apply backward elimination when I was working on a Decision Tree model for this dataset (not sure if it can actually be applied to Decision Tree at all).
It would be of great help if I can get some idea on how to approach to feature elimination for the above two cases. Let me know if you need more info, I will gladly provide.

It's extremely general question. I don't think that it possible to answer to your question in StackOverFlow format.
For every ML / Statistical model you need different Feature Elimination / Feature Engineering approach:
Linear / Logistic / GLM models require removal of correlated features
For Neural Nets / Boosted trees removal of features will heart performance of the model
Even for one type of models there's no single best way of doing Feature Elimination
If you can add more specific information to your question it'll be possible to discuss it in details.

This is a fun one without any definitive answers (No Free Lunch Theorems) that apply across the board. That said, there are many guidelines which typically have success in real-world problems. Those guidelines will work fine in the specific datasets you explicitly mentioned as well.
As with just about anything else, one must always consider the purpose of feature elimination. Without a goal or set of goals, any answer is valid. With an objective, not only can you hone in on a good answer, but it can open up the door to other ideas you may not have considered. Typically feature elimination is done for one of four reasons:
Increased Accuracy
Increased Generalization
Decreased Bias
Decreased Variance
Decreased Computational Costs
Ease of Explanation
Of course there are other reasons, but these cover the main use cases. With respect to any of those metrics, the obvious (and awful -- never do this) way to choose which ones to keep is to try all combinations in your model and see what happens. In the Boston Housing dataset, this yields 2^13=8192 possible combinations of features to test. The combinatorial growth is exponential, and not only is this approach likely to lead to survivorship bias, it is too expensive for most people and most data.
Barring any sort of a comprehensive examination of all possible options, one must use a heuristic of some kind to attempt to find the same results. I'll mention several:
Train the model n times, each with precisely one feature removed (a different feature each time). If a model has poor performance it indicates that the removed feature is important.
Train the model once with all features, and randomly perturb each input one feature at a time (this can be done stochastically if you don't want to waste time on every input). The features which cause the most classification error when perturbed are the ones which matter the most.
As you said, perform some sort of correlation testing with the target variable to determine feature importance and a cross-correlation to remove duplicated linear information.
These different approaches have different assumptions and goals. Feature removal is important from a computational standpoint (many machine learning algorithms are quadratic or worse in the number of features), and with that perspective the goal is to preserve the behavior of the model as best as possible while removing as much information (i.e., as much complexity) as possible. In the Boston Housing data set, your cross-correlation analysis would probably leave you with Charles River Proximity, Nitrous Oxide Concentration, and Average Room Number as the most relevant variables. Between those three you capture nearly all the accuracy a linear model can obtain on the data.
One thing to point out is that feature removal by definition removes information. This can improve accuracy and generalization for only a few reasons.
By removing redundant information, the model has less bias toward those features and is better able to generalize.
By removing noisy information, the model can focus its efforts on features with high informational content. Note that this affects non-deterministic models like neural networks more than models like linear regressions. Linear regressions always converge to the one unique solution (except in special cases that happen with a true 0% probability where there are multiple solutions).
When you're throwing a lot of features into an algorithm (50k different genes for an organism for example), it makes a lot of sense that some of them won't carry any information. By definition then, any variance they have is noise that the model may inadvertently pick up instead of the signal we want. Feature removal is a common strategy in that domain which improves accuracy dramatically.
Contrast that with the Boston Housing data which has 13 carefully curated features, all of which carry information (based on eyeballing crude scatter plots with respect to the target variable). That particular reasoning isn't likely to affect accuracy much. Moreover, there aren't enough features for there to be very much bias introduced with duplicated information.
On top of that, there are hundreds of data points covering the majority of the input space, so even if we did have bias problems or extraneous features, there is more than enough data that the effects will be negligible. Perhaps enough to make or break the 1st or 2nd place winners in Kaggle, but not enough to make the difference between a good analysis and a great analysis.
Especially if you're using a linear algorithm on top though, having fewer features can greatly aid in the explainability of a model. If you restrict your model to those three variables, it's pretty easy to tell a person that you know houses in the area are expensive because they're all waterfront, they're huge, and they have nice lawns (nitrous oxide indicates fertilizer usage).
Removing features is only a small portion of feature engineering, and another important technique is the addition of features. Adding features usually amounts to low-order polynomial interactions (as an example, the age variable has a fairly weak correlation to the medv variable, but if you square it then the data straightens out a bit and improves the correlation).
Adding features (and removing them) can be aided greatly with a little domain knowledge. I don't know a ton about housing, so I can't add a lot of help here, but in other domains like credit worthiness you can easily imagine combining debt and income features to get a ratio of debt to income as a single feature. Reshaping those features so that they linearly correlate to your output and represent physically meaningful quantities in the domain is a big part of obtaining accuracy and generalizability.
With respect to generalizability and domain knowledge, even with something as simple as a linear model it's important to be able to explain why a feature is important. Just because the data says that nitrous oxide matters in the test set doesn't mean that it will carry any predictive weight in the train set as well. Especially as the number of features grows and the amount of data shrinks, you will expect such correlations to occur purely by accident. Having a physical interpretation (nitrous oxide corresponds to nice lawns) yields confidence that the model isn't learning spurious correlations.

Selecting the best combination of variables for regression model based on reg score

Hello old faithful community,
This might be a though one as I can barely find any material on this.
The Problem
I have a data set of crimes committed in NSW Australia by council, and have merged this with average house prices by council. I'm now looking to produce a linear regression to try and predict said house price by the crime in the neighbourhood. The issue is, I have 49 crimes, and only want the best ones (statistically speaking) to be used in my model.
I've run the regression score over all and some variables (using correlation), and had results from .23 - .38 but I want to perfect this to the best possible - if there is a way to do this of course.
I've thought about looping over every possible combination, but this would end up by couple of million according to google.
So, my friends - how can I python this dataframe to get the best columns?

If I might add, you may want to take a look at the Python package mlxtend, http://rasbt.github.io/mlxtend.
It is a package that features several forward/backward stepwise regression algorithms, while still using the regressors/selectors of sklearn.

There is no gold standard to solving this problem and you are right, selecting every combination is computational not feasible most of the time -- especially with 49 variables. One method would be to implement a forward or backward selection by adding/removing variables based on a user specified p-value criteria (this is the statistically relevant criteria you mention). For python implementations using statsmodels, check out these links:
https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/24405/how-to-do-stepwise-regression-using-sklearn/24447#24447
http://planspace.org/20150423-forward_selection_with_statsmodels/
Other approaches that are less 'statistically valid' would be to define a model evaluation metric (e.g., r squared, mean squared error, etc) and use a variable selection approach such as LASSO, random forest, genetic algorithm, etc to identify the set of variables that optimize the metric of choice. I find that in practice, ensembling these techniques in a voting-type scheme works the best as different techniques work better for certain types of data. Check out the links below from sklearn to see some options that you can code up pretty quickly with your data:
Overview of techniques: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/feature_selection.html
A stepwise procedure: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.feature_selection.RFE.html
Select best features based on model: http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.feature_selection.SelectFromModel.html
If you are up for it, I would try a few techniques and see if the answers converge to the same set of features -- This will give you some insight into the relationships between your variables.

Feature Selection and Reduction for Text Classification

I am currently working on a project, a simple sentiment analyzer such that there will be 2 and 3 classes in separate cases. I am using a corpus that is pretty rich in the means of unique words (around 200.000). I used bag-of-words method for feature selection and to reduce the number of unique features, an elimination is done due to a threshold value of frequency of occurrence. The final set of features includes around 20.000 features, which is actually a 90% decrease, but not enough for intended accuracy of test-prediction. I am using LibSVM and SVM-light in turn for training and prediction (both linear and RBF kernel) and also Python and Bash in general.
The highest accuracy observed so far is around 75% and I need at least 90%. This is the case for binary classification. For multi-class training, the accuracy falls to ~60%. I need at least 90% at both cases and can not figure how to increase it: via optimizing training parameters or via optimizing feature selection?
I have read articles about feature selection in text classification and what I found is that three different methods are used, which have actually a clear correlation among each other. These methods are as follows:
Frequency approach of bag-of-words (BOW)
Information Gain (IG)
X^2 Statistic (CHI)
The first method is already the one I use, but I use it very simply and need guidance for a better use of it in order to obtain high enough accuracy. I am also lacking knowledge about practical implementations of IG and CHI and looking for any help to guide me in that way.
Thanks a lot, and if you need any additional info for help, just let me know.
#larsmans: Frequency Threshold: I am looking for the occurrences of unique words in examples, such that if a word is occurring in different examples frequently enough, it is included in the feature set as a unique feature.
#TheManWithNoName: First of all thanks for your effort in explaining the general concerns of document classification. I examined and experimented all the methods you bring forward and others. I found Proportional Difference (PD) method the best for feature selection, where features are uni-grams and Term Presence (TP) for the weighting (I didn't understand why you tagged Term-Frequency-Inverse-Document-Frequency (TF-IDF) as an indexing method, I rather consider it as a feature weighting approach). Pre-processing is also an important aspect for this task as you mentioned. I used certain types of string elimination for refining the data as well as morphological parsing and stemming. Also note that I am working on Turkish, which has different characteristics compared to English. Finally, I managed to reach ~88% accuracy (f-measure) for binary classification and ~84% for multi-class. These values are solid proofs of the success of the model I used. This is what I have done so far. Now working on clustering and reduction models, have tried LDA and LSI and moving on to moVMF and maybe spherical models (LDA + moVMF), which seems to work better on corpus those have objective nature, like news corpus. If you have any information and guidance on these issues, I will appreciate. I need info especially to setup an interface (python oriented, open-source) between feature space dimension reduction methods (LDA, LSI, moVMF etc.) and clustering methods (k-means, hierarchical etc.).

This is probably a bit late to the table, but...
As Bee points out and you are already aware, the use of SVM as a classifier is wasted if you have already lost the information in the stages prior to classification. However, the process of text classification requires much more that just a couple of stages and each stage has significant effects on the result. Therefore, before looking into more complicated feature selection measures there are a number of much simpler possibilities that will typically require much lower resource consumption.
Do you pre-process the documents before performing tokensiation/representation into the bag-of-words format? Simply removing stop words or punctuation may improve accuracy considerably.
Have you considered altering your bag-of-words representation to use, for example, word pairs or n-grams instead? You may find that you have more dimensions to begin with but that they condense down a lot further and contain more useful information.
Its also worth noting that dimension reduction is feature selection/feature extraction. The difference is that feature selection reduces the dimensions in a univariate manner, i.e. it removes terms on an individual basis as they currently appear without altering them, whereas feature extraction (which I think Ben Allison is referring to) is multivaritate, combining one or more single terms together to produce higher orthangonal terms that (hopefully) contain more information and reduce the feature space.
Regarding your use of document frequency, are you merely using the probability/percentage of documents that contain a term or are you using the term densities found within the documents? If category one has only 10 douments and they each contain a term once, then category one is indeed associated with the document. However, if category two has only 10 documents that each contain the same term a hundred times each, then obviously category two has a much higher relation to that term than category one. If term densities are not taken into account this information is lost and the fewer categories you have the more impact this loss with have. On a similar note, it is not always prudent to only retain terms that have high frequencies, as they may not actually be providing any useful information. For example if a term appears a hundred times in every document, then it is considered a noise term and, while it looks important, there is no practical value in keeping it in your feature set.
Also how do you index the data, are you using the Vector Space Model with simple boolean indexing or a more complicated measure such as TF-IDF? Considering the low number of categories in your scenario a more complex measure will be beneficial as they can account for term importance for each category in relation to its importance throughout the entire dataset.
Personally I would experiment with some of the above possibilities first and then consider tweaking the feature selection/extraction with a (or a combination of) complex equations if you need an additional performance boost.
Additional
Based on the new information, it sounds as though you are on the right track and 84%+ accuracy (F1 or BEP - precision and recall based for multi-class problems) is generally considered very good for most datasets. It might be that you have successfully acquired all information rich features from the data already, or that a few are still being pruned.
Having said that, something that can be used as a predictor of how good aggressive dimension reduction may be for a particular dataset is 'Outlier Count' analysis, which uses the decline of Information Gain in outlying features to determine how likely it is that information will be lost during feature selection. You can use it on the raw and/or processed data to give an estimate of how aggressively you should aim to prune features (or unprune them as the case may be). A paper describing it can be found here:
Paper with Outlier Count information
With regards to describing TF-IDF as an indexing method, you are correct in it being a feature weighting measure, but I consider it to be used mostly as part of the indexing process (though it can also be used for dimension reduction). The reasoning for this is that some measures are better aimed toward feature selection/extraction, while others are preferable for feature weighting specifically in your document vectors (i.e. the indexed data). This is generally due to dimension reduction measures being determined on a per category basis, whereas index weighting measures tend to be more document orientated to give superior vector representation.
In respect to LDA, LSI and moVMF, I'm afraid I have too little experience of them to provide any guidance. Unfortunately I've also not worked with Turkish datasets or the python language.

I would recommend dimensionality reduction instead of feature selection. Consider either singular value decomposition, principal component analysis, or even better considering it's tailored for bag-of-words representations, Latent Dirichlet Allocation. This will allow you to notionally retain representations that include all words, but to collapse them to fewer dimensions by exploiting similarity (or even synonymy-type) relations between them.
All these methods have fairly standard implementations that you can get access to and run---if you let us know which language you're using, I or someone else will be able to point you in the right direction.

There's a python library for feature selection
TextFeatureSelection. This library provides discriminatory power in the form of score for each word token, bigram, trigram etc.
Those who are aware of feature selection methods in machine learning, it is based on filter method and provides ML engineers required tools to improve the classification accuracy in their NLP and deep learning models. It has 4 methods namely Chi-square, Mutual information, Proportional difference and Information gain to help select words as features before being fed into machine learning classifiers.
from TextFeatureSelection import TextFeatureSelection
#Multiclass classification problem
input_doc_list=['i am very happy','i just had an awesome weekend','this is a very difficult terrain to trek. i wish i stayed back at home.','i just had lunch','Do you want chips?']
target=['Positive','Positive','Negative','Neutral','Neutral']
fsOBJ=TextFeatureSelection(target=target,input_doc_list=input_doc_list)
result_df=fsOBJ.getScore()
print(result_df)
#Binary classification
input_doc_list=['i am content with this location','i am having the time of my life','you cannot learn machine learning without linear algebra','i want to go to mars']
target=[1,1,0,1]
fsOBJ=TextFeatureSelection(target=target,input_doc_list=input_doc_list)
result_df=fsOBJ.getScore()
print(result_df)
Edit:
It now has genetic algorithm for feature selection as well.
from TextFeatureSelection import TextFeatureSelectionGA
#Input documents: doc_list
#Input labels: label_list
getGAobj=TextFeatureSelectionGA(percentage_of_token=60)
best_vocabulary=getGAobj.getGeneticFeatures(doc_list=doc_list,label_list=label_list)
Edit2
There is another method nowTextFeatureSelectionEnsemble, which combines feature selection while ensembling. It does feature selection for base models through document frequency thresholds. At ensemble layer, it uses genetic algorithm to identify best combination of base models and keeps only those.
from TextFeatureSelection import TextFeatureSelectionEnsemble
imdb_data=pd.read_csv('../input/IMDB Dataset.csv')
le = LabelEncoder()
imdb_data['labels'] = le.fit_transform(imdb_data['sentiment'].values)
#convert raw text and labels to python list
doc_list=imdb_data['review'].tolist()
label_list=imdb_data['labels'].tolist()
#Initialize parameter for TextFeatureSelectionEnsemble and start training
gaObj=TextFeatureSelectionEnsemble(doc_list,label_list,n_crossvalidation=2,pickle_path='/home/user/folder/',average='micro',base_model_list=['LogisticRegression','RandomForestClassifier','ExtraTreesClassifier','KNeighborsClassifier'])
best_columns=gaObj.doTFSE()`
Check the project for details: https://pypi.org/project/TextFeatureSelection/

Linear svm is recommended for high dimensional features. Based on my experience the ultimate limitation of SVM accuracy depends on the positive and negative "features". You can do a grid search (or in the case of linear svm you can just search for the best cost value) to find the optimal parameters for maximum accuracy, but in the end you are limited by the separability of your feature-sets. The fact that you are not getting 90% means that you still have some work to do finding better features to describe your members of the classes.

I'm sure this is way too late to be of use to the poster, but perhaps it will be useful to someone else. The chi-squared approach to feature reduction is pretty simple to implement. Assuming BoW binary classification into classes C1 and C2, for each feature f in candidate_features calculate the freq of f in C1; calculate total words C1; repeat calculations for C2; Calculate a chi-sqaure determine filter candidate_features based on whether p-value is below a certain threshold (e.g. p < 0.05). A tutorial using Python and nltk can been seen here: http://streamhacker.com/2010/06/16/text-classification-sentiment-analysis-eliminate-low-information-features/ (though if I remember correctly, I believe the author incorrectly applies this technique to his test data, which biases the reported results).