Skip to content
Prev 366072 / 398502 Next

tests for significance on conditional inference trees from party package

Adrian,

thanks for your interest.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Adrian Johnson wrote:

            
If the response variable is the same and the patients are the same, then I 
don't see why - conceptionally - you couldn't combine "totally 
independent" variables in the same tree. Or maybe I misunderstand what 
"totally independent" is.

Practically - however, choosing a tree from 4,000 regressor variables will 
be challenging, especially if you want to adjust in some way for the 
multiple testing. So maybe some additional structure would help here.
Parsing the tree structure is quite cumbersome in the old "party" 
implementation. This was one of the main motivations to establish the 
reimplementation in "partykit". This has a much better and more accessible 
tree infrastructure. See the vignettes in the "partykit" package for more 
details - especially vignette("partykit", package = "partykit") gives a 
good overview of the building blocks.

Additionally, over at StackOverflow you can find various additional 
bits and pieces that may be helpful. Look for the "party" tag.

Finally, there is also a partykit support forum on R-Forge.
It is not clear to me what/how you want to rank the results. However, 
looking at the sources of information listed above might take you a few 
steps further.
The MOB (model-based recursive partitioning) algorithm is also based on 
significance tests and implemented in the "partykit" package. It uses 
parametric asymptotic inference rather than nonparametric conditional 
inference. Otherwise the two approaches are very similar in many respects.

Hope that helps,
Z