Community Spring Cleaning week is here! Join your fellow Maveryx in digging through your old posts and marking comments on them as solved. Learn more here!

Weekly Challenges

Solve the challenge, share your solution and summit the ranks of our Community!

Also available in | Français | Português | Español | 日本語
IDEAS WANTED

Want to get involved? We're always looking for ideas and content for Weekly Challenges.

SUBMIT YOUR IDEA

Challenge #157: An Expert Challenge

SeanAdams
17 - Castor
17 - Castor

This was a great one - thank you for the learning!

Thank you also to @SydneyF  for the great explanatory articles that really helped.

 

Spoiler
First: Used forest model to get the variable importance plot.   Much to learn here about what this plot is saying (thanks again @SydneyF 

VariableImportancePlot.png
Then you need to compare two models that predict H0.   Given that H0 is a binary variable, this looks like logistic regression, so this means that we can use the Nested Test tool to spot the difference between the two models

SolutionPic.png

Which then gives the Chi-SQ difference caused by removal of F_38

F38RemovalChiSQ.png

 

TimothyManning
8 - Asteroid
Spoiler
157. Predictive.PNG
Definitely hard! I figured out with Google to use the forest model for the mean decrease Gini coefficient, but then wasn't sure which model to use and how to find the chi square comparison. After getting several R errors when using various tools and connecting things in the wrong way, I used @pjdit's spoiler to see it was the logistic regression and nested test tools, which I don't think I've used before. 
TonyA
Alteryx Alumni (Retired)

Solution below.

Spoiler
The first part was pretty simple since only a couple of tools have variable importance plots. But I went down a rat hole trying to do the model because I went with random forest and the results came up exactly the same for the 9 variable or 10 variable case. That's when I went back to my standby, logistic regression and saw some differences in the Model comparison tool. The chi-squared thing had me thrown for a bit. I did find the calculations and was ready to go that way, but stumbled across nested test, which made it a lot easier. My solution winds up being similar to the one provided, although I didn't verify the independence of the variables.
jusdespommes
8 - Asteroid

I love these predictive challenges as I learn so so much! Through good luck I made it through to the last bit (using Google) and then had to peek to see what you scored the models using to get Chi-Squared. I'd be tempted by this (after a little more practice) in the Expert! Thank you 🙂

 

WeeklyChallenge157.PNG

hanykowska
11 - Bolide
Spoiler
I have quite mixed feelings about this one. Unless you specifically do this use case, I don't think there is a way of knowing which tool to use. Alteryx documentation for chi-sq and chi-squared doesn't mention any tools apart from contingency table (which is something I tried to use) - this includes documentation for the nested test tool. 

Having said that, it's a nice challenge to explore predictive tools a bit more and I've learned a new tool! I will definitely pay more attention to tools descriptions as well 🙂
image.png
Jonathan-Sherman
15 - Aurora
15 - Aurora

Challenge 157 is done!

 

Spoiler
challenge 157 JMS solution.PNG
Karam
8 - Asteroid

Good practice!

cgoodman3
14 - Magnetar
14 - Magnetar
Spoiler
Hopefully I don't get anything this hard in Expert next week!
Solution.PNG
Chris
Check out my collaboration with fellow ACE Joshua Burkhow at AlterTricks.com
JoshuaGostick
11 - Bolide

My solution 🙂

 

Spoiler
challenge_157.PNG
timrains
8 - Asteroid

Challenge done. 

 

Spoiler
Remarkably simple once you know about the nested test and random forest tools! Though had to look these up through the help. 

Week157.PNG