Kathryn Bryant and M. Aaron Owen share their Kaggle experiences. First, Kathryn, et al:
The lifecycle of our project was a typical one. We started with data cleaning and basic exploratory data analysis, then proceeded to feature engineering, individual model training, and ensembling/stacking. Of course, the process in practice was not quite so linear and the results of our individual models alerted us to areas in data cleaning and feature engineering that needed improvement. We used root mean squared error (RMSE) of log Sale Price to evaluate model fit as this was the metric used by Kaggle to evaluate submitted models.
Data cleaning, EDA, feature engineering, and private train/test splitting (and one spline model!) were all done in R but we used Python for individual model training and ensembling/stacking. Using R and Python in these ways worked well, but the decision to split work in this manner was driven more by timing than anything else.
Then, Aaron, et al, share their process and findings:
Some variables had a moderate amount of missingness. For example, about 17% of the houses were missing the continuous variable, Lot Frontage, the linear feet of street connected to the property. Intuitively, attributes related to the size of a house are likely important factors regarding the price of the house. Therefore, dropping these variables seems ill-advised.
Our solution was based on the assumption that houses in the same neighborhood likely have similar features. Thus, we imputed the missing Lot Frontage values based on the median Lot Frontage for the neighborhood in which the house with missing value was located.
This is the major upside to Kaggle: it gives you the ability to work in a controlled environment with real data sets, which include real data problems. Yeah, the data’s much cleaner than you’d experience in production pretty much anywhere, but that lets you practice technique with a relatively low barrier to entry. H/T R-Bloggers (Kathryn | Aaron)
Comments closed