A Simple Analysis of Human Resources Data Set and Some Machine
Learning Methods
Maiia Bakhova
##### Content

- Introduction
- Data Load
- Creating Numeric Variables from Character Columns
- Choosing data for work
- Machine Learning
- Decision Tree with Result Explanation
- Random Forest Method
- Linear and Quadratic Discriminant Analysis
- Nearest Neighbors
- Support Vector Machines
- Logistic regression
- Conclusion

### Introduction

Here I show analysis, feature engineering and decision tree construction
with the result
explanation for a csv data set.

I work on kaggle data set "Human Resources Analytics", which can be found at url

https://www.kaggle.com/ludobenistant/hr-analytics.
There we see that a question for the data set is the following:

#### Why are our best and most experienced employees leaving prematurely?

There you can find a data file in csv format and download it. Each record (a row) represents an
employee. Fields in the data set include:

- Employee satisfaction level
- Last evaluation
- Number of projects
- Average monthly hours
- Time spent at the company
- Whether they have had a work accident
- Whether they have had a promotion in the last 5 years
- Department
- Salary
- Whether the employee has left

### Data Load

I start with reading data set and looking at its properties:
dimensions, column names and types of data. Let us assume that the data file
lies in our working directory.

dt=read.csv("HR_comma_sep.csv", stringsAsFactors=F)
options(wide=120)
str(dt)

## 'data.frame': 14999 obs. of 10 variables:
## $ satisfaction_level : num 0.38 0.8 0.11 0.72 0.37 0.41 0.1 0.92 0.89 0.42 ...
## $ last_evaluation : num 0.53 0.86 0.88 0.87 0.52 0.5 0.77 0.85 1 0.53 ...
## $ number_project : int 2 5 7 5 2 2 6 5 5 2 ...
## $ average_montly_hours : int 157 262 272 223 159 153 247 259 224 142 ...
## $ time_spend_company : int 3 6 4 5 3 3 4 5 5 3 ...
## $ Work_accident : int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
## $ left : int 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...
## $ promotion_last_5years: int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
## $ sales : chr "sales" "sales" "sales" "sales" ...
## $ salary : chr "low" "medium" "medium" "low" ...

# Checking for missing values:
sapply(dt, function(x) sum(is.na(x)))

## satisfaction_level last_evaluation number_project
## 0 0 0
## average_montly_hours time_spend_company Work_accident
## 0 0 0
## left promotion_last_5years sales
## 0 0 0
## salary
## 0

As we see all data columns (variables) except for the last 2 ones have numeric and
integer types.
Our target variable is
marked as "left" and it is 7th. In addition, here are no missing values, which is convenient.
We learnt that a rate of leaving the company 23.8% in accordance to this data set.

We can check pairwise plots, correlations and densities for first 8 columns.

library(psych)
pairs.panels(dt[,1:8], hist.col="lightblue",
cex.axis=1.5, cex.cor=0.5)

This picture shows that the greatest absolute correlations of the "left" column are
"satisfaction_level", "time_spend_company" and "Work_accident".

### Creating Numeric Variables from Character Columns

Now let us look at what the values in last 2 columns.

## [1] "low" "medium" "high"

## [1] "sales" "accounting" "hr" "technical" "support"
## [6] "management" "IT" "product_mng" "marketing" "RandD"

In "salary" column we see 3 levels for salary values and it looks like "sales" column represents
10 departments. Let us see how uniformly data records are distributed between
salary levels and departments:

##
## high low medium
## 1237 7316 6446

##
## accounting hr IT management marketing product_mng
## 767 739 1227 630 858 902
## RandD sales support technical
## 787 4140 2229 2720

It is not very uniform, but at least here are a few hundred records for every salary type
and for each department. I would like to replace "salary"
column with three other columns: "high_salary", "low_salary", "medium_salary". Each will have values
0 and 1, denoting "no" and "yes", respectfully. In a package called "dummies" we find a function
which produces such columns from a text variable.

## dummies-1.5.6 provided by Decision Patterns

dumdt=dummy(dt$salary)
dumdt=as.data.frame(dumdt)
names(dumdt)

## [1] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlhigh"
## [2] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmllow"
## [3] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlmedium"

**Remark:** I got these names because I was using RStudio to create this text. The names
may be different if you work with a command line interface.

The names are not good because they are too long. I will replace them.

names(dumdt)=c("high_salary", "low_salary", "medium_salary")

I will attach my new variables to existing data frame and remove now redundant "salary".

dt=cbind(dt,dumdt)
dt$salary=NULL
str(dt)

## 'data.frame': 14999 obs. of 12 variables:
## $ satisfaction_level : num 0.38 0.8 0.11 0.72 0.37 0.41 0.1 0.92 0.89 0.42 ...
## $ last_evaluation : num 0.53 0.86 0.88 0.87 0.52 0.5 0.77 0.85 1 0.53 ...
## $ number_project : int 2 5 7 5 2 2 6 5 5 2 ...
## $ average_montly_hours : int 157 262 272 223 159 153 247 259 224 142 ...
## $ time_spend_company : int 3 6 4 5 3 3 4 5 5 3 ...
## $ Work_accident : int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
## $ left : int 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...
## $ promotion_last_5years: int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
## $ sales : chr "sales" "sales" "sales" "sales" ...
## $ high_salary : int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...
## $ low_salary : int 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...
## $ medium_salary : int 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...

I will go through the similar steps with "sales" column. It has 10 values, so I'll create
new columns, rename them and remove the "sales" column.

dumdt=dummy(dt$sales)
dumdt=as.data.frame(dumdt)
names(dumdt)

## [1] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlaccounting"
## [2] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlhr"
## [3] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.RhtmlIT"
## [4] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlmanagement"
## [5] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlmarketing"
## [6] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlproduct_mng"
## [7] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.RhtmlRandD"
## [8] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlsales"
## [9] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmlsupport"
## [10] "HumanResoursesAnalytics.Rhtmltechnical"

names(dumdt)=c("accounting","hr","IT","management","marketing","product_mng","RandD",
"sales","support", "technical")
dt=cbind(dt,dumdt)
dt$sales=NULL
dim(dt)

# Removing the object we do not need anymore
rm(dumdt)

We got 13 new columns. We can check how they are correlated. In this
case all our variables are categorical, and plotting them is not helpful. We will check
numerical correlations.

options(wide=110)
cor(dt[,c(7,9:14)])

## left high_salary low_salary medium_salary
## left 1.0000000000 -0.1209294638 0.13472197414 -0.06883296809
## high_salary -0.1209294638 1.0000000000 -0.29256037558 -0.26027352121
## low_salary 0.1347219741 -0.2925603756 1.00000000000 -0.84714420898
## medium_salary -0.0688329681 -0.2602735212 -0.84714420898 1.00000000000
## accounting 0.0152011507 0.0118213193 -0.00975882741 0.00328479594
## hr 0.0282487481 -0.0178579572 -0.01568984972 0.02576547182
## IT -0.0109248273 -0.0160889786 0.00511558982 0.00377497434
## accounting hr IT
## left 0.01520115067 0.0282487481 -0.01092482732
## high_salary 0.01182131932 -0.0178579572 -0.01608897862
## low_salary -0.00975882741 -0.0156898497 0.00511558982
## medium_salary 0.00328479594 0.0257654718 0.00377497434
## accounting 1.00000000000 -0.0528478314 -0.06929286031
## hr -0.05284783141 1.0000000000 -0.06794949459
## IT -0.06929286031 -0.0679494946 1.00000000000

## left management marketing product_mng
## left 1.000000000000 -0.0460353907 -0.000859304044 -0.0110291521
## management -0.046035390706 1.0000000000 -0.051577535319 -0.0529659689
## marketing -0.000859304044 -0.0515775353 1.000000000000 -0.0623079556
## product_mng -0.011029152078 -0.0529659689 -0.062307955590 1.0000000000
## RandD -0.046595651167 -0.0492738809 -0.057964667577 -0.0595250386
## sales 0.009923407034 -0.1292892024 -0.152092863576 -0.1561871042
## support 0.010700118013 -0.0874815739 -0.102911324656 -0.1056816303
## technical 0.020076104934 -0.0985507548 -0.115932856081 -0.1190536929
## RandD sales support technical
## left -0.0465956512 0.00992340703 0.0107001180 0.0200761049
## management -0.0492738809 -0.12928920242 -0.0874815739 -0.0985507548
## marketing -0.0579646676 -0.15209286358 -0.1029113247 -0.1159328561
## product_mng -0.0595250386 -0.15618710420 -0.1056816303 -0.1190536929
## RandD 1.0000000000 -0.14529980143 -0.0983149024 -0.1107548413
## sales -0.1452998014 1.00000000000 -0.2579674078 -0.2906084287
## support -0.0983149024 -0.25796740777 1.0000000000 -0.1966357767
## technical -0.1107548413 -0.29060842875 -0.1966357767 1.0000000000

As we see our new variables may have lower correlations with our target variable "left"
than between themselves. It happens because 1) a person should have some salary, so if it is not high
or low it must be medium, 2) a person should belong to one of the departments as well. Hence
variables in these groups are correlated.

I will remove a variable in each group which yields the lowest correlation with my target variable:
"medium_salary" and "marketing".

dt$medium_salary =NULL
dt$marketing =NULL

### Choosing data for work

As we remember we are supposed to answer a specific question: Why are our best
and most experienced employees leaving prematurely?
Regretfully we are not
told if our data set already contains the employees, and we need to check it out.
Let us compute what are "last_evaluation" and "time_spend_company" ranges.

range(dt$last_evaluation)

range(dt$time_spend_company)

As we see evaluations may be rather low. Therefore our data set has other employees
which we do not need for our analysis.

I will plot
a histogram for "last_evaluation" column" and mark the median for its values as a blue
vertical line.

hist(dt$last_evaluation, col="salmon",
xlab="Last Evaluation Value",
main="Histogram of Last Evaluation Values")
abline(v=median(dt$last_evaluation),
col=4,lwd=3)

median(dt$last_evaluation)

Doing going through similar steps for time spent with company:

hist(dt$time_spend_company, col="khaki",
xlab="Last Evaluation Value",
main="Histogram of Time Spent with Company")
abline(v=median(dt$time_spend_company),
col=4,lwd=3)

median(dt$time_spend_company)

We can consider as best and most experienced employees people who have evaluation above 0.72 and
spent more than 3 years with the company as
the "best and most experienced employees". We can compute what is a rate of leaving for
such employees.

dt=dt[dt$last_evaluation>0.72 & dt$time_spend_company>3,]
mean(dt$left)

The rate of leaving was 23.8%, and now it is more than doubled. It is a cause for concern.

Let us now repeat the same pairwise plots with correlations we did at first.

library(psych)
pairs.panels(dt[,1:8], hist.col="lightblue",
cex.axis=1.5, cex.cor=0.5)

As we see the data behavior is a bit different now. Now columns "average_montly_hours",
"number_project" and "satisfaction_level" yield highest correlations with "left" variable.

My data frame is ready for prediction.

### Machine Learning

Because we need to explain why employees are leaving then a simple decision tree algorithm
is the best.

#### Decision Tree with Result Explanation

The option called "maxdepth" defines a maximal depth of a tree.

library(rpart)
library(rpart.plot )
cart_mod=rpart(left~., data=dt, maxdepth=5)
rpart.plot(cart_mod)

So, what do we see on our tree graph? That majority of valuable employees work overtime: 70%. People
with normal time load tend to stay, with rate of 94%. Among those who work too many hours several
can stay if they have no more than 3.5 projects. There are a few enthusiasts who do not leave
with too much work and their satisfaction is above 0.71. But most of overworked people are
leaving, and they are the 54% of all valuable workers. Even high salary does not help. As we see the
longer overworked people stay at the company, the more they are inclined to leave.

I want to see how reliable is my result and I will split the data set into 2 sets:
for training and for testing. We will compute a decision tree model for a train set and
check what accuracy we get predicting with the model on test set.
To make sure that our accuracy number is not
accidental it makes sense to repeat it a few times. In practice it is done at least 10 times
(and called cross-validation),
but I will limit it to 4. I will set up random seeds
to make sure I have no repetitions.

par(mfrow=c(2,2))
seed=c(89,132,765,4)
accuracy=numeric(length=4)
for (i in 1:4){
set.seed(seed[i])
indeces=sample(1:dim(dt)[1], round(.7*dim(dt)[1]))
train=dt[indeces,]
test=dt[-indeces,]
cart_mod=rpart(left~., data=train, maxdepth=5)
rpart.plot(cart_mod, digits=3)
# In this case our predictions are returned as probabilities,
# and we need 0 and 1.
predictionsAs0and1=sapply(predict(cart_mod,test[,-7]),
function(nu) ifelse(nu>.5, 1, 0))
accuracy[i]=
sum(test$left==predictionsAs0and1)/length(test$left)
}

## [1] 0.959847036 0.958891013 0.956022945 0.958891013

As you see our accuracy here fluctuates somewhere between 95.5% and 96%. The decision trees
change slightly as well, but not much.

If we are not limiting our predictions with methods which are to explain
to a layman then we can get better accuracy.

#### Random Forest Method

For random forest method we construct many trees and default option is 500 of them.
For every tree and
at each tree level we pick up only a subset of variables. We need to choose a
size for such subset and in the package below it is called "mtry".
As before to check method reliability
I will examine its work on different subsets of the data. In addition I
want to see what variables are important for the method, so I create
a data frame for "mtry" number, corresponding accuracy and for 3
most important variables.

library(randomForest)
# For classification I'm to declare the target variable as factor.
dt$left=as.factor(dt$left)
resultTable=data.frame(N=1:4, accuracy=0,
importance1=character(length=4L),
importance2=character(length=4L),
importance3=character(length=4L), stringsAsFactors=FALSE)
for (i in 1:4) {
set.seed(seed[i])
indeces=sample(1:dim(dt)[1], round(.7*dim(dt)[1]))
train=dt[indeces,]
test=dt[-indeces,]
rf_model=randomForest(left~., data=train, mtry=6,importance=TRUE)
resultTable[i,"accuracy"]=
sum(test$left==predict(rf_model,test[,-7]))/length(test$left)
resultTable[i,3:5]=
rownames(rf_model$importance)[1:3]
}
resultTable

## N accuracy importance1 importance2 importance3
## 1 1 0.985659656 satisfaction_level last_evaluation number_project
## 2 2 0.984703633 satisfaction_level last_evaluation number_project
## 3 3 0.991395793 satisfaction_level last_evaluation number_project
## 4 4 0.990439771 satisfaction_level last_evaluation number_project

We can get accuracy 98.5%-99% choosing "mtry=6". The most significant variable
is "satisfaction_level", then "last_evaluation" and "number_project". As we saw previously the fist
variable is responsible for majority of leaving workers.

#### Linear and Quadratic Discriminant Analysis

These methods require some specific properties of data. Our variables
are supposed to have a normal distribution, and by the look of their
histograms they do not. Thus the methods is not likely not perform well
and we see as a result.

Linear discriminant analysis

library(MASS)
lda_model=lda(left~., data=train)
pred=predict(lda_model, test)$class
sum(test$left==pred)/length(test$left)

Quadratic discriminant analysis in addition suggests that variable
correlations are consistent,
which clearly does not help.

qda_model=qda(left~., data=train)
pred=predict(qda_model, test)$class
sum(test$left==pred)/length(test$left)

#### Nearest Neighbors

With nearest neighbors we check for each test value if it is close to some values in
train set if
we consider each record as a point in multidimensional space. For this we need values for
each variable to be approximately of the same scale. We can look at our plot and see that it
is not the case. Majority of our data values are 0 and 1, but some are not.
Let us see it in more detail:

## satisfaction_level last_evaluation number_project
## [1,] 0.09 0.73 2
## [2,] 1.00 1.00 7
## average_montly_hours time_spend_company Work_accident
## [1,] 96 4 0
## [2,] 310 10 1

I will shift and scale variables which have large numbers.

dt$number_project=(dt$number_project-2)/5
dt$average_montly_hours=(dt$average_montly_hours-90)/200
dt$time_spend_company=dt$time_spend_company/10

Number of neighbors in the method is "k".

library(class)
knn_accuracy=numeric(length=19)
for (i in 1:19){
pred=knn(train[, -7], test[, -7], train$left, k=i)
knn_accuracy[i]=sum(test$left==pred)/length(test$left)
}
knn_accuracy

## [1] 0.913001912 0.885277247 0.875717017 0.874760994 0.875717017
## [6] 0.874760994 0.871892925 0.871892925 0.869980880 0.872848948
## [11] 0.871892925 0.869024857 0.870936902 0.864244742 0.861376673
## [16] 0.859464627 0.858508604 0.859464627 0.852772467

The method does not yield good accuracy for any number of neighbors even in comparison
with the decision tree method and it does not make sense to investigate how reliable
is the resulting number.

#### Support Vector Machines

We can try another method which is based on measuring distances:
support vector machines. For this method we are looking for linear
borders between geometrical clusters of our data.

library(e1071)
svm_model=svm(left~., data=dt, kernel="linear", type="C")
sum(test$left==predict(svm_model, test[,-7]))/length(test$left)

It is the worst. It means that our data do not form two
clusters which we can mark as "left" and "stayed".
You can try other kernels which represent different kind of
borders and verify that it is no help. I am not going to check
out the resulting accuracy as well.

#### Logistic Regression

Now let us use logistic regression. It is not likely to produce a good result, because
for it to work properly we need a number of assumptions. Still we can check it out.

seed=c(89,132,765,4)
accuracy=numeric(length=4)
for (i in 1:4){
set.seed(seed[i])
indeces=sample(1:dim(dt)[1], round(.7*dim(dt)[1]))
train=dt[indeces,]
test=dt[-indeces,]
log_reg_model=glm(left~., data=train, family="binomial")
## Values for logistic regression predictions are
## not limited to 0 and 1.
predictionsAs0and1=sapply(predict(log_reg_model,test[,-7]), function(nu) ifelse(nu>0, 1, 0))
accuracy[i]=sum(test$left==predictionsAs0and1)/length(test$left)
}
accuracy

## [1] 0.860420650 0.869980880 0.855640535 0.875717017

It is not one of the best as well. So our variables are not very good fit for
linear additive model. Although sometimes 85% is all you can get from data, but
here we've seen better accuracy.

#### Conclusion

Random Forest method yields the best accuracy, although it does not explain
much. The Decision Tree is much more useful for staff policy recommendations.
Other method mostly tell us what our data are not: we can not divide records
into 2 well defined clusters which we can name "left" and "stayed",
variables are not mutlinormally distributed, and linear additive model does not work well
predicting desired outcome.

**Remark:** I would like to note that I used simple variations of the methods and did not explore all options.

As you see I have a lot of repetitions in my code. There is a way to avoid it: look at
"caret" package!