Mir ist aufgefallen, dass die Verwendung von Formel- und Nicht-Formel-Methoden in Caret während des Trainings unterschiedliche Ergebnisse liefert. Außerdem beträgt die Zeit für die Formelmethode fast das 10-fache der Zeit für die Nicht-Formelmethode. Wird das erwartet?

> z <- data.table(c1=sample(1:1000,1000, replace=T), c2=as.factor(sample(LETTERS, 1000, replace=T)))

# SYSTEM TIME WITH FORMULA METHOD
# -------------------------------

> system.time(r <- train(c1 ~ ., z, method="rf", importance=T))
   user  system elapsed
376.233   9.241  18.190

> r
1000 samples
   1 predictors

No pre-processing
Resampling: Bootstrap (25 reps)

Summary of sample sizes: 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, ...

Resampling results across tuning parameters:

  mtry  RMSE  Rsquared  RMSE SD  Rsquared SD
  2     295   0.00114   4.94     0.00154
  13    300   0.00113   5.15     0.00151
  25    300   0.00111   5.16     0.00146

RMSE was used to select the optimal model using  the smallest value.
The final value used for the model was mtry = 2.


# SYSTEM TIME WITH NON-FORMULA METHOD
# -------------------------------

> system.time(r <- train(z[,2,with=F], z$c1, method="rf", importance=T))
       user  system elapsed
     34.984   2.977   2.708
    Warning message:
    In randomForest.default(trainX, trainY, mtry = tuneValue$.mtry,  :
  invalid mtry: reset to within valid range
> r
1000 samples
   1 predictors

No pre-processing
Resampling: Bootstrap (25 reps)

Summary of sample sizes: 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, ...

Resampling results

  RMSE  Rsquared  RMSE SD  Rsquared SD
  297   0.00152   6.67     0.00197

Tuning parameter 'mtry' was held constant at a value of 2