Message-ID: <CA+8X3fVpesBYY9bXbyHwYQUXrrrTh1qA_7USuAh3hvg0oaGmNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: 2015-04-30T06:54:34Z
From: Jim Lemon
Subject: GLM: What is a good way for dealing with new factor levels in the test set?
In-Reply-To: <1430345103451-4706621.post@n4.nabble.com>
Hi thuksu,
Would defining the factor in your training set with all the levels
that occur in the test set solve the problem? That is, there would be
at least one factor level in the training set even though there were
no instances of that factor.
Jim
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:05 AM, thuksu <toby at huksu.com> wrote:
> My training set and my test set have some factor levels that are
> different.... It's rare, but it occurs.
>
> What is a good way for dealing with this?
>
> I don't want to throw away the entire row from the data frame, because there
> is some valuable information in there.
>
> Is there some way to say something like "use the weighted average
> coefficient level for this factor"?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://r.789695.n4.nabble.com/GLM-What-is-a-good-way-for-dealing-with-new-factor-levels-in-the-test-set-tp4706621.html
> Sent from the R help mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.