The hardware and bandwidth for this mirror is donated by dogado GmbH, the Webhosting and Full Service-Cloud Provider. Check out our Wordpress Tutorial.
If you wish to report a bug, or if you are interested in having us mirror your free-software or open-source project, please feel free to contact us at mirror[@]dogado.de.
4. Advanced analysis: smoothing, tuning,
comparison, and mining
This vignette covers the parts of transitiontrees beyond
the basic fit-prune-predict loop: choosing a smoother and a pruning
rule, picking hyperparameters by cross-validation, quantifying pathway
reliability, comparing cohorts with a permutation test, introspecting
the fitted tree, and mining it for contexts and sequences of
interest.
Setup
We work throughout from one fit on the bundled
trajectories data and its pruned form – the same starting
point as Getting started.
library(transitiontrees)
data(trajectories)
set.seed(1)
tree <- context_tree(trajectories, max_depth = 4L, min_count = 5L)
pruned <- prune_tree(tree, criterion = "G2", alpha = 0.05)
1. Smoothing schemes
Smoothing decides what probability an unseen next state
receives. Five schemes are implemented (floor,
laplace, kneser_ney, witten_bell,
jelinek_mercer). compare_smoothing() refits
under each and reports in-sample perplexity in one call.
compare_smoothing(trajectories, max_depth = 4L, min_count = 5L)
#> smoothing n_nodes perplexity
#> 1 floor 82 2.157411
#> 2 laplace 82 2.181832
#> 3 kneser_ney 82 2.167730
#> 4 witten_bell 82 2.161948
#> 5 jelinek_mercer 82 2.200473
Two things to read. First, n_nodes is identical across
schemes – smoothing changes probabilities, never which
contexts exist; topology is set by min_count, not the
smoother. Second, do not pick a smoother on in-sample
perplexity (it rewards memorisation); the cross-validation in section 3
is the verdict that counts.
Handed a fitted tree, compare_smoothing()
re-smooths it under every scheme (via smooth_tree(),
without re-counting) instead of refitting – a smoothing sweep on the
already-pruned model in one call:
compare_smoothing(pruned)
#> smoothing n_nodes perplexity
#> 1 floor 25 2.239207
#> 2 laplace 25 2.243759
#> 3 kneser_ney 25 2.241328
#> 4 witten_bell 25 2.240596
#> 5 jelinek_mercer 25 2.296256
2. Pruning criteria
prune_tree() supports four criteria.
compare_pruning() applies each – holding
alpha/threshold fixed – and reports how hard
each one trims.
compare_pruning(tree)
#> criterion n_nodes reduction_pct
#> 1 G2 25 69.5
#> 2 KL 78 4.9
#> 3 AIC 42 48.8
#> 4 BIC 36 56.1
G2 (the likelihood-ratio test) and AIC ask
“is the extra depth justified given its sample size?”; BIC
punishes parameters harder (its penalty scales with log n);
KL at a lenient absolute threshold keeps
almost everything. Use G2 (or AIC) unless you
have a specific reason, and report the reduction – “most grown contexts
were unjustified” is itself a finding.
3. Cross-validated tuning
tune_tree() runs k-fold CV at the sequence
level over a grid of
(max_depth, min_count, smoothing, prune) and returns a
ranked data.frame with the winner on attr(., "best").
tg <- tune_tree(trajectories, max_depth = 1L:4L, folds = 5L, seed = 42L)
head(tg, 6)
#> <transitiontrees_tune> 6 configurations
#> max_depth nmin smoothing prune logLik n_scored
#> 4 10 floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) FALSE -1568.594 1870
#> 3 10 floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) FALSE -1578.793 1870
#> 4 10 floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) TRUE -1580.100 1870
#> 3 10 floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) TRUE -1582.190 1870
#> 2 3 floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) FALSE -1583.660 1870
#> 2 5 floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) FALSE -1583.660 1870
#> perplexity n_nodes_avg folds_failed
#> 2.313636 59.8 0
#> 2.326290 31.2 0
#> 2.327916 23.4 0
#> 2.330519 15.4 0
#> 2.332352 13.0 0
#> 2.332352 13.0 0
#>
#> best (min perplexity):
#> max_depth nmin smoothing prune logLik n_scored
#> 4 10 floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) FALSE -1568.594 1870
#> perplexity n_nodes_avg folds_failed
#> 2.313636 59.8 0
attr(tg, "best")
#> max_depth nmin smoothing prune logLik n_scored
#> 1 4 10 floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) FALSE -1568.594 1870
#> perplexity n_nodes_avg folds_failed
#> 1 2.313636 59.8 0
(min_count and prune are swept by their
defaults; add smoothing = or a wider
min_count = to grow the grid.)
The shape of the curve is as informative as the winning point: if
perplexity keeps falling with max_depth the process has
long memory; if it flattens early (as engagement data tends to) the
useful memory is short and deeper trees just overfit. Refit at the
chosen configuration on the full data for downstream use.
4. Bootstrap pathway reliability
bootstrap_pathways() resamples whole sequences and
reports, per pathway, stability_rate (the count reproduces)
and informative_rate (the G-squared against the parent
reproducibly clears the chi-square bar). Keeping the raw resamples lets
you also see the full distribution of any statistic.
boot <- bootstrap_pathways(pruned, iter = 100L, stat = "count",
seed = 1L, keep_resamples = TRUE)
boot
#> <transitiontrees_bootstrap> 100 resamples
#> stability : count in [0.50, 1.50] x observed, p < 0.05
#> informative: G^2 > qchisq(0.95, df=k-1) = 5.99, threshold 0.80
#> pathways : 25 total, 23 stable, 16 informative, 15 both
#>
#> top pathways (stable + informative first):
#> pathway depth count p_stability stability_rate
#> Average 1 751 0.01 1
#> Active 1 658 0.01 1
#> Active -> Active 2 433 0.01 1
#> Disengaged 1 325 0.01 1
#> Active -> Average 2 160 0.01 1
#> Average -> Active 2 144 0.01 1
#> Disengaged -> Average 2 122 0.01 1
#> Active -> Average -> Average 3 80 0.01 1
#> Average -> Active -> Active 3 70 0.01 1
#> Average -> Active -> Active -> Active 4 37 0.01 1
#> stable informative_rate informative mean_G2 ci_G2_lo ci_G2_hi
#> TRUE 1.00 TRUE 121.332 77.334 169.750
#> TRUE 1.00 TRUE 323.544 262.193 397.656
#> TRUE 0.99 TRUE 17.429 7.540 28.547
#> TRUE 1.00 TRUE 182.436 116.621 263.531
#> TRUE 1.00 TRUE 29.705 14.895 44.565
#> TRUE 1.00 TRUE 29.645 11.605 50.310
#> TRUE 1.00 TRUE 32.180 14.405 51.494
#> TRUE 0.83 TRUE 12.651 2.896 26.037
#> TRUE 0.99 TRUE 24.531 8.339 45.878
#> TRUE 0.88 TRUE 13.321 2.527 30.223
#> # ... 15 more pathways (use summary(x) for full table)
summary() returns the tidy per-pathway table, sorted so
the trustworthy (stable and informative) pathways come first.
Each tracked statistic (count,
next_probability, divergence, G2)
carries a symmetric mean / sd / ci_lo / ci_hi quartet, so
you can report a bootstrap CI for any pathway statistic rather than a
bare point estimate:
head(summary(boot))
#> pathway depth count likely_next next_probability divergence
#> 1 Average 1 751 Average 0.6098535 0.11356246
#> 2 Active 1 658 Active 0.6975684 0.34948716
#> 3 Active -> Active 2 433 Active 0.7852194 0.02860157
#> 4 Disengaged 1 325 Disengaged 0.4830769 0.40306556
#> 5 Active -> Average 2 160 Average 0.5187500 0.12282588
#> 6 Average -> Active 2 144 Active 0.5000000 0.14727560
#> changes_prediction G2 p_stability stability_rate stable
#> 1 FALSE 118.23068 0.00990099 1 TRUE
#> 2 TRUE 318.79579 0.00990099 1 TRUE
#> 3 FALSE 17.16853 0.00990099 1 TRUE
#> 4 TRUE 181.59944 0.00990099 1 TRUE
#> 5 FALSE 27.24365 0.00990099 1 TRUE
#> 6 FALSE 29.40010 0.00990099 1 TRUE
#> informative_rate informative flip_consistency mean_count sd_count ci_count_lo
#> 1 1.00 TRUE 0.90 751.89 46.40073 669.90
#> 2 1.00 TRUE 0.90 656.33 55.93558 548.90
#> 3 0.99 TRUE 1.00 433.31 48.66266 342.75
#> 4 1.00 TRUE 0.78 329.07 35.83725 257.65
#> 5 1.00 TRUE 0.97 157.98 13.71645 134.90
#> 6 1.00 TRUE 0.64 142.04 13.40279 119.90
#> ci_count_hi mean_next_probability sd_next_probability ci_next_probability_lo
#> 1 838.100 0.6089800 0.02291564 0.5633791
#> 2 758.400 0.6984192 0.02710968 0.6430115
#> 3 518.525 0.7838157 0.02776100 0.7310934
#> 4 398.000 0.4890828 0.04122430 0.4257269
#> 5 180.000 0.5239125 0.03932595 0.4610542
#> 6 167.525 0.5263975 0.02480997 0.4924242
#> ci_next_probability_hi mean_divergence sd_divergence ci_divergence_lo
#> 1 0.6551483 0.1170732 0.02630261 0.07344001
#> 2 0.7444871 0.3580817 0.05090311 0.27501751
#> 3 0.8300447 0.0292888 0.01077040 0.01297239
#> 4 0.5679302 0.4003099 0.08610383 0.26712291
#> 5 0.5880668 0.1367369 0.04571332 0.06137939
#> 6 0.5732639 0.1529062 0.05971739 0.05510873
#> ci_divergence_hi mean_G2 sd_G2 ci_G2_lo ci_G2_hi
#> 1 0.16545642 121.33164 25.049863 77.334459 169.75013
#> 2 0.44831966 323.54387 37.804208 262.192780 397.65569
#> 3 0.05001702 17.42938 6.133403 7.540294 28.54731
#> 4 0.57597705 182.43597 43.775724 116.621329 263.53131
#> 5 0.22509244 29.70501 9.751262 14.895484 44.56477
#> 6 0.26864894 29.64515 10.691417 11.604989 50.30995
plot_pathway_resamples() draws the full resample
distribution per pathway. A tight unimodal peak means the estimate is
well-determined; a bimodal or heavy-tailed panel is the tell that the
pathway is carrier-driven – a few sequences account for it, and
dropping them in a resample collapses it.
plot_pathway_resamples(boot, stat = "divergence", top = 6L)
5. Comparing two cohorts
Name an external group column and
context_tree(group = ) fits one tree per group in a single
call, returning a transitiontrees_group that
prune_tree() and compare_trees() consume
directly – no manual splitting or label-building. We compare high- and
low-achieving students on the bundled group_regulation_long
log.
data(group_regulation_long)
grp <- prune_tree(context_tree(group_regulation_long,
actor = "Actor", time = "Time", action = "Action",
group = "Achiever", max_depth = 2L, min_count = 10L))
cmp <- compare_trees(grp, iter = 199L, seed = 1L)
cmp
#> <transitiontrees_comparison> iter = 199
#> observed distance : 0.0478
#> null mean : 0.00368
#> p-value : 0.005
#>
#> top divergent pathways:
#> pathway count_a count_b divergence_ab divergence_ba
#> cohesion -> cohesion 40 0 0.473 0.447
#> synthesis 278 374 0.300 0.311
#> emotion -> emotion 86 0 0.133 0.251
#> discuss 2003 1948 0.178 0.204
#> cohesion 938 757 0.120 0.115
#> discuss -> coregulate 0 170 0.096 0.080
#> divergence_sym
#> 0.460
#> 0.305
#> 0.192
#> 0.191
#> 0.117
#> 0.088
The printed comparison reports the observed distance
(pdist, a count-weighted symmetric-KL between the cohorts’
pathway distributions) and the p_value from permuting the
sequence-to-cohort labels. A significant result says the cohorts
generate genuinely different pathway dynamics, not a relabelling
artefact.
For the full per-axis decomposition (behavioural vs usage) and a tidy
pairwise distance_matrix, compare_groups()
consumes the same group =-fitted tree – see the
Complete analysis case vignette.
6. Tree introspection
Three accessors treat the tree as a queryable object.
query_pathway(pruned, c("Active", "Active")) # full distribution
#> Active Average Disengaged
#> 0.78521940 0.19399538 0.02078522
query_pathway(pruned, "Disengaged", next_state = "Disengaged") # one cell
#> [1] 0.4830769
pathway_exists(pruned, "Active -> Disengaged") # membership (no backoff)
#> [1] TRUE
By default an unseen context backs off to its longest matching
suffix; pass exact = TRUE to demand the literal node
(returns NA if it is not one) – the tool for auditing
which contexts the tree actually holds.
query_pathway(pruned, c("Active", "Average", "Active"), exact = TRUE)
#> Active Average Disengaged
#> NA NA NA
subtree() extracts the slice rooted at a context – the
same pathway API then runs on the slice:
sub <- subtree(pruned, "Active") # its banner reads "subtree of: Active"
sub
#> <transitiontrees> 7 nodes, depth <= 4, 3 states [pruned]
#> alphabet : Active, Average, Disengaged
#> fit on : 136 sequences, 1870 observations
#> smoothing: floor(ymin=0.001, rule=interpolate) min_count = 5
#> pruned by: G2 alpha = 0.05
#> subtree of: Active
head(tree_pathways(sub), 4)
#> pathway depth count likely_next next_probability
#> 1 Active 1 658 Active 0.6975684
#> 2 Active -> Active 2 433 Active 0.7852194
#> 3 Active -> Active -> Active 3 316 Active 0.8354430
#> 4 Average -> Active 2 144 Active 0.5000000
#> divergence changes_prediction
#> 1 NA NA
#> 2 0.02860157 FALSE
#> 3 0.01149187 FALSE
#> 4 0.14727560 FALSE
7. Mining contexts and sequences
mine_contexts() scans the tree for contexts where a
chosen state is unusually likely (or unlikely):
mine_contexts(pruned, state = "Disengaged", min_prob = 0.5)
#> pathway depth count state
#> 1 Disengaged -> Average -> Average -> Disengaged 4 13 Disengaged
#> 2 Disengaged -> Disengaged 2 139 Disengaged
#> prob is_modal
#> 1 0.8461538 TRUE
#> 2 0.6762590 TRUE
mine_sequences() ranks supplied sequences by how well
the model predicts them – the surprising ones are atypical
trajectories worth a closer look:
mine_sequences(pruned, newdata = trajectories, which = "surprising", n = 5L)
#> sequence_id n_scored log_lik perplexity
#> 1 33 1 -1.664397 5.282486
#> 2 96 1 -1.664397 5.282486
#> 3 97 1 -1.664397 5.282486
#> 4 101 1 -1.664397 5.282486
#> 5 104 1 -1.664397 5.282486
8. Imputing gaps
impute_sequences() fills internal missing
states from the fitted tree – modal takes the most likely
state at each gap, prob samples from the predicted
distribution:
gappy <- list(c("Active", "Active", NA, "Disengaged"),
c("Average", NA, "Average"))
impute_sequences(pruned, gappy, method = "modal")
#> [[1]]
#> [1] "Active" "Active" "Active" "Disengaged"
#>
#> [[2]]
#> [1] "Average" "Average" "Average"
9. Generating sequences
Every fitted tree is also a generative model.
generate_sequences() samples by walking the conditional
distributions; simulate() is the R-standard generic
wrapping it with nsim and a seed.
generate_sequences(pruned, n = 4L, length = 10L)
#> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
#> [1,] "Average" "Active" "Active" "Active" "Active"
#> [2,] "Active" "Active" "Active" "Active" "Active"
#> [3,] "Disengaged" "Disengaged" "Disengaged" "Disengaged" "Disengaged"
#> [4,] "Active" "Disengaged" "Average" "Average" "Average"
#> [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
#> [1,] "Active" "Active" "Average" "Disengaged" "Active"
#> [2,] "Average" "Average" "Average" "Average" "Average"
#> [3,] "Disengaged" "Disengaged" "Disengaged" "Disengaged" "Disengaged"
#> [4,] "Average" "Active" "Average" "Active" "Active"
simulate(pruned, nsim = 4L, seed = 42L, length = 10L)
#> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
#> [1,] "Disengaged" "Average" "Disengaged" "Active" "Disengaged"
#> [2,] "Disengaged" "Average" "Disengaged" "Average" "Average"
#> [3,] "Average" "Active" "Active" "Active" "Active"
#> [4,] "Disengaged" "Disengaged" "Average" "Disengaged" "Disengaged"
#> [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
#> [1,] "Average" "Average" "Average" "Average" "Average"
#> [2,] "Average" "Average" "Disengaged" "Average" "Average"
#> [3,] "Disengaged" "Active" "Average" "Average" "Disengaged"
#> [4,] "Active" "Average" "Disengaged" "Disengaged" "Disengaged"
Generated sequences should look plausibly like the real ones – a
sanity check that the model captured the gross dynamics – and give you a
null behavioural corpus for stress-testing a downstream pipeline.
These binaries (installable software) and packages are in development.
They may not be fully stable and should be used with caution. We make no claims about them.
Health stats visible at Monitor.