# MLR: Inference conditions + multicollinearity

STA 210 - Summer 2022

# Welcome

## Topics

• Conditions for inference

• Multicollinearity

## Computational setup

# load packages
library(tidyverse)
library(tidymodels)
library(knitr)      # for tables
library(patchwork)  # for laying out plots
library(rms)        # for vif

# set default theme and larger font size for ggplot2
ggplot2::theme_set(ggplot2::theme_minimal(base_size = 20))

## Data: rail_trail

• The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) collected data for ninety days from April 5, 2005 to November 15, 2005.
• Data collectors set up a laser sensor, with breaks in the laser beam recording when a rail-trail user passed the data collection station.
rail_trail <- read_csv(here::here("slides", "data/rail_trail.csv"))
rail_trail
# A tibble: 90 × 7
volume hightemp avgtemp season cloudcover precip day_type
<dbl>    <dbl>   <dbl> <chr>       <dbl>  <dbl> <chr>
1    501       83    66.5 Summer       7.60 0      Weekday
2    419       73    61   Summer       6.30 0.290  Weekday
3    397       74    63   Spring       7.5  0.320  Weekday
4    385       95    78   Summer       2.60 0      Weekend
5    200       44    48   Spring      10    0.140  Weekday
6    375       69    61.5 Spring       6.60 0.0200 Weekday
7    417       66    52.5 Spring       2.40 0      Weekday
8    629       66    52   Spring       0    0      Weekend
9    533       80    67.5 Summer       3.80 0      Weekend
10    547       79    62   Summer       4.10 0      Weekday
# … with 80 more rows

Source: Pioneer Valley Planning Commission via the mosaicData package.

## Variables

Outcome:

volume estimated number of trail users that day (number of breaks recorded)

Predictors

• hightemp daily high temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit)
• avgtemp average of daily low and daily high temperature (in degrees Fahrenheit)
• season one of “Fall”, “Spring”, or “Summer”
• cloudcover measure of cloud cover (in oktas)
• precip measure of precipitation (in inches)
• day_type one of “weekday” or “weekend”

# Conditions for inference

## Full model

Including all available predictors

Fit:

rt_full_fit <- linear_reg() %>%
set_engine("lm") %>%
fit(volume ~ ., data = rail_trail)

Summarize:

tidy(rt_full_fit)
# A tibble: 8 × 5
term            estimate std.error statistic p.value
<chr>              <dbl>     <dbl>     <dbl>   <dbl>
1 (Intercept)        17.6      76.6      0.230 0.819
2 hightemp            7.07      2.42     2.92  0.00450
3 avgtemp            -2.04      3.14    -0.648 0.519
4 seasonSpring       35.9      33.0      1.09  0.280
5 seasonSummer       24.2      52.8      0.457 0.649
6 cloudcover         -7.25      3.84    -1.89  0.0627
7 precip            -95.7      42.6     -2.25  0.0273
8 day_typeWeekend    35.9      22.4      1.60  0.113  

Augment:

rt_full_aug <- augment(rt_full_fit$fit) ## Model conditions 1. Linearity: There is a linear relationship between the response and predictor variables. 2. Constant Variance: The variability about the least squares line is generally constant. 3. Normality: The distribution of the residuals is approximately normal. 4. Independence: The residuals are independent from each other. ## Residuals vs. predicted values ggplot(data = rt_full_aug, aes(x = .fitted, y = .resid)) + geom_point(alpha = 0.5) + geom_hline(yintercept = 0, color = "red", linetype = "dashed") + labs(x = "Predicted values", y = "Residuals") ## Linearity: Residuals vs. predicted Does the linearity condition appear to be met? ## Linearity: Residuals vs. predicted If there is some pattern in the plot of residuals vs. predicted values, you can look at individual plots of residuals vs. each predictor to try to identify the issue. ## Linearity: Residuals vs. each predictor ## Checking linearity • The plot of residuals vs. predicted shows a fan shaped pattern • The plots of residuals vs. high and low temperature also shows a similar pattern and vs. precipitation does not show a random scatter • The linearity condition is not satisfied. ## Checking constant variance Does the constant variance condition appear to be satisfied? ## Checking constant variance • The vertical spread of the residuals is not constant across the plot. • The constant variance condition is not satisfied. ## Checking normality ## Overlaying a density plot on a histogram • Overlay density plot on a histogram +geom_density() • Overlay a normal density plot on a histogram to compare whether normal assumption is reasonable (adjust bin width) ggplot(rt_full_aug, aes(.resid)) + geom_histogram(aes(y = after_stat(density)), binwidth = 50) + stat_function( fun = dnorm, args = list(mean = mean(rt_full_aug$.resid), sd = sd(rt_full_aug.resid)), lwd = 2, color = "red" ) ## Checking independence • We can often check the independence condition based on the context of the data and how the observations were collected. • If the data were collected in a particular order, examine a scatterplot of the residuals versus order in which the data were collected. • If there is a grouping variable lurking in the background, check the residuals based on that grouping variable. ## Checking independence Residuals vs. order of data collection: ggplot(rt_full_aug, aes(y = .resid, x = 1:nrow(rt_full_aug))) + geom_point() + labs(x = "Order of data collection", y = "Residuals") ## Checking independence Residuals vs. predicted values by season: overlap a lot ## Checking independence Residuals vs. predicted values by day_type: overlap a lot ## Checking independence No clear pattern in the residuals vs. order of data collection plot and the model predicts similarly for seasons and day types. Independence condition appears to be satisfied, as far as we can evaluate it. # Multicollinearity ## Why multicollinearity is a problem • We can’t include two variables that have a perfect linear association with each other • Mathematically, cannot find unique estimates for the model coefficients - - non-identifiability ## Example Suppose the true population regression equation is $y = 3 + 4x$ • Suppose we try estimating that equation using a model with variables $x$ and $z = x/10$ \begin{aligned}\hat{y}&= \hat{\beta}_0 + \hat{\beta}_1x + \hat{\beta}_2z\\ &= \hat{\beta}_0 + \hat{\beta}_1x + \hat{\beta}_2\frac{x}{10}\\ &= \hat{\beta}_0 + \bigg(\hat{\beta}_1 + \frac{\hat{\beta}_2}{10}\bigg)x \end{aligned} ## Example $\hat{y} = \hat{\beta}_0 + \bigg(\hat{\beta}_1 + \frac{\hat{\beta}_2}{10}\bigg)x$ • We can set $\hat{\beta}_1$ and $\hat{\beta}_2$ to any two numbers such that $\hat{\beta}_1 + \frac{\hat{\beta}_2}{10} = 4$ • Therefore, we are unable to choose the “best” combination of $\hat{\beta}_1$ and $\hat{\beta}_2$ ## Why multicollinearity is a problem • When we have almost perfect collinearities (i.e. highly correlated predictor variables), the standard errors for our regression coefficients inflate (uncertainty on identification) • Lose precision in our estimates of the regression coefficients • Impedes model inference or prediction ## Will not influence the point estimate Geometric explanation for multiple regression (for model with 2 predictors): • Data points locate in a 3D space expanded by (y,x1,x2). • MLR is a line go through the center of the data “cloud” • If we slice the space with constant $x_1$, we obtain projection of the regression line to the plane $x_2=c$. The projection is a line with the slope $\beta_1$. So $\beta_1$ is interpreted as: if $x_1$ increases by 1 unit, we expect $y$ increases by $\beta_1$, on average, hold other constant. • If $x_1$ and $x_2$ linear related, it is like rotate the line on $(y,x_1)$ space to $(y,x_1,x_2)$ space. So add $x_2$ will not change the point estimate of $\beta_1$ much. But due to the nonidentifiability, the se will inflate. ## Detecting Multicollinearity Multicollinearity may occur when… • There are very high correlations $(r > 0.9)$ among two or more predictor variables, especially when the sample size is small • One (or more) predictor variables is an almost perfect linear combination of the others • Include a quadratic in the model mean-centering the variable first • Including interactions between two or more continuous variables ## Detecting multicollinearity in the EDA • Look at a correlation matrix of the predictor variables, including all indicator variables • Look out for values close to 1 or -1 • Look at a scatterplot matrix of the predictor variables • Look out for plots that show a relatively linear relationship • Look at variables that have unreasonable coefficients (based on context) ## Detecting Multicollinearity (VIF) Variance Inflation Factor (VIF): Measure of multicollinearity in the regression model $VIF(\hat{\beta}_j) = \frac{1}{1-R^2_{X_j|X_{-j}}}$ where $R^2_{X_j|X_{-j}}$ is the proportion of variation $X$ that is explained by the linear combination of the other explanatory variables in the model. ## Detecting Multicollinearity (VIF) Typically $VIF > 10$ indicates concerning multicollinearity • Variables with similar values of VIF are typically the ones correlated with each other Use the vif() function in the rms R package to calculate VIF ## VIF For SAT Model vif(rt_full_fitfit)
       hightemp         avgtemp    seasonSpring    seasonSummer      cloudcover
10.259978       13.086175        2.751577        5.841985        1.587485
precip day_typeWeekend
1.295352        1.125741 

hightemp and avgtemp are correlated. We need to remove one of these variables and refit the model.

## Model without hightemp

m1 <- linear_reg() %>%
set_engine("lm") %>%
fit(volume ~ . - hightemp, data = rail_trail)

m1 %>% tidy() %>%
kable(digits = 3)
term estimate std.error statistic p.value
(Intercept) 76.071 77.204 0.985 0.327
avgtemp 6.003 1.583 3.792 0.000
seasonSpring 34.555 34.454 1.003 0.319
seasonSummer 13.531 55.024 0.246 0.806
cloudcover -12.807 3.488 -3.672 0.000
precip -110.736 44.137 -2.509 0.014
day_typeWeekend 48.420 22.993 2.106 0.038
glance(m1) %>%
select(adj.r.squared, AIC, BIC)
# A tibble: 1 × 3
adj.r.squared   AIC   BIC
<dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
1         0.421 1088. 1108.

## Model without avgtemp

m2 <- linear_reg() %>%
set_engine("lm") %>%
fit(volume ~ . - avgtemp, data = rail_trail)

m2 %>% tidy() %>%
kable(digits = 3)
term estimate std.error statistic p.value
(Intercept) 8.421 74.992 0.112 0.911
hightemp 5.696 1.164 4.895 0.000
seasonSpring 31.239 32.082 0.974 0.333
seasonSummer 9.424 47.504 0.198 0.843
cloudcover -8.353 3.435 -2.431 0.017
precip -98.904 42.137 -2.347 0.021
day_typeWeekend 37.062 22.280 1.663 0.100
glance(m2) %>%
select(adj.r.squared, AIC, BIC)
# A tibble: 1 × 3
adj.r.squared   AIC   BIC
<dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
1         0.473 1079. 1099.

## Choosing a model

Model with hightemp removed:

adj.r.squared AIC BIC
0.42 1087.5 1107.5

Model with avgtemp removed:

adj.r.squared AIC BIC
0.47 1079.05 1099.05

Based on Adjusted $R^2$, AIC, and BIC, the model with avgtemp removed is a better fit. Therefore, we choose to remove avgtemp from the model and leave hightemp in the model to deal with the multicollinearity.

## Recap

• Conditions for inference

• Multicollinearity