-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
ch7.Rmd
1029 lines (807 loc) · 28.6 KB
/
ch7.Rmd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
---
title: "Chapter 7. Excercises"
output:
github_document:
md_extensions: -fancy_lists+startnum
html_notebook:
md_extensions: -fancy_lists+startnum
---
```{r setup, include=FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(echo = TRUE)
library(tidyverse)
library(modelr)
library(ISLR)
library(mgcv)
library(splines)
library(leaps)
library(rlang)
wage <- ISLR::Wage %>% as_tibble()
```
## Conceptual
(1)
![](ch7_files/exc1_instructions.png)
![](ch7_files/exc1.png)
(2)
![](ch7_files/exc2_instr.png)
![](ch7_files/exc2.png)
(3)
![](ch7_files/exc3_instr.png)
![](ch7_files/exc3.png)
(4)
![](ch7_files/exc4.png)
(5)
![](ch7_files/exc5_instr.png)
(a) g2 will have smaller training RSS, because the resulting function, with fourth derivative aproaching constant zero, will be more flexible than g1, which will have its third derivative approaching constant zero. Another way to see it it's that when $\lambda = \infty$ then g1 could be a polynomial up to third degree (less flexible), and g2 a polynomial up to fourth degree (more flexible).
(b) Based on (a), which function will have the smaller test RSS will depend on the true relationship in the data. If the true relationship is more non-linear and "wiggly", then g2 will probably do a better job with the test data.
(c) If $\lambda = 0$ then the penalization term it's canceled in both functions, and the optimization problem it's the same in g1 and g2. Therefore, both functions should have similar test and training RSS.
## Applied
(6)
(a)
Using CV to get the optimal grade of the polynomial regression:
```{r}
wage_mse_by_poly_grade <- function(grade) {
wage %>%
crossv_kfold(k = 50) %>%
mutate(model = map(train, ~ lm(wage ~ poly(age, grade), data = .))) %>%
mutate(predicted =
map2(model, test, ~ broom::augment(.x, newdata = .y))) %>%
unnest(c(.id, predicted)) %>%
group_by(.id) %>%
summarise(mse = mean((.fitted - wage) ^ 2)) %>%
summarise(mean(mse))
}
mse_by_grade <-
tibble(
grades = 2:20,
mse = map(grades, wage_mse_by_poly_grade)
) %>%
unnest(mse)
qplot(grades, `mean(mse)`, data = mse_by_grade, geom = "line")
```
From what we see on the MSE plot, it seems that a polynomial of grade 4 is enough.
Comparing to ANOVA results:
```{r}
polys <-
map(2:10, ~lm(wage ~ poly(age, .), data = wage))
do.call(anova, polys)
```
The hypothesis testing in ANOVA suggests that a polynomial of grade 3 it's enough to explain the variability in `wage`.
Let's plot the grade 3 and grade 4 polynomials.
```{r}
poly3 <- lm(wage ~ poly(age, 3), data = wage)
poly4 <- lm(wage ~ poly(age, 4), data = wage)
modelr::data_grid(wage, age) %>%
add_predictions(poly3, var = "grade 3") %>%
add_predictions(poly4, var = "grade 4") %>%
pivot_longer(
cols = `grade 3`:`grade 4`,
names_to = "model",
values_to = "pred_wage"
) %>%
ggplot() +
geom_point(data = wage, aes(age, wage), alpha = 0.15) +
geom_line(aes(age, pred_wage, color = model), size = 1.1)
```
(b) Fit a step function to predict `wage` using `age`, and perform cross-validation to choose the optimal number of cuts. Make a plot of the fit obtained.
```{r}
wage_mse_by_step_cuts <- function(cuts) {
wage %>%
crossv_kfold(k = 20) %>%
mutate(model = map(train, ~ lm(wage ~ cut(age, cuts), data = .))) %>%
mutate(predicted =
map2(model, test, ~ broom::augment(.x, newdata = .y))) %>%
unnest(c(.id, predicted)) %>%
group_by(.id) %>%
summarise(mse = mean((.fitted - wage) ^ 2)) %>%
summarise(mean(mse))
}
mse_by_cuts <-
tibble(
cuts = 2:40,
mse = map(cuts, wage_mse_by_step_cuts)
) %>%
unnest(mse)
qplot(cuts, `mean(mse)`, data = mse_by_cuts, geom = "line")
```
It seems that the optimal number of cuts is 2 (more cuts implies a higher test MSE).
```{r}
modelr::data_grid(wage, age) %>%
add_predictions(lm(wage ~ cut(age, 2), data = wage), var = "pred_wage") %>%
ggplot() +
geom_point(data = wage, aes(age, wage), alpha = 0.15) +
geom_line(aes(age, pred_wage), color = "blue", size = 1.1)
```
(7) The `Wage` data set contains a number of other features not explored in this chapter, such as marital status (`maritl`), job class (`jobclass`), and others. Explore the relationships between some of these other predictors and wage, and use non-linear fitting techniques in order to fit flexible models to the data. Create plots of the results obtained, and write a summary of your findings.
Predictors to explore: `maritl`, `race`, `jobclass`.
```{r}
ggplot(wage) +
geom_boxplot(aes(maritl, wage))
```
```{r}
ggplot(wage) +
geom_boxplot(aes(race, wage))
```
```{r}
ggplot(wage) +
geom_boxplot(aes(jobclass, wage))
```
```{r}
ggplot(wage) +
geom_boxplot(aes(health, wage))
```
Now let's put all this variables in a model:
```{r}
lm(wage ~ poly(age, 3) + year + maritl + race + education + health,
data = wage) %>%
summary()
```
Let's consider some interactions:
```{r}
lm(wage ~ poly(age, 2)*race + year + maritl + education + jobclass + health,
data = wage) %>%
summary()
```
```{r}
lm(wage ~ poly(age, 2) + year + maritl + education + race*jobclass + health,
data = wage) %>%
summary()
```
```{r}
lm(wage ~ poly(age, 2) + year + maritl + education * jobclass + health + race,
data = wage) %>%
summary()
```
Predictions and exploring results in model with interaction between jobclass and race:
```{r}
model_int_rac_jc <-
lm(wage ~ poly(age, 2) + year + maritl + education + race * jobclass + health,
data = wage)
grid_race_jobclass <-
data_grid(wage,
race, jobclass,
.model = model_int_rac_jc) %>%
add_predictions(model_int_rac_jc)
avg_by_job_class <-
grid_race_jobclass %>%
group_by(jobclass) %>%
summarise(mean_pred = mean(pred))
ggplot(grid_race_jobclass) +
geom_col(aes(jobclass, pred, fill = race),
position = position_dodge()) +
geom_crossbar(data=avg_by_job_class,
aes(x = jobclass, y = mean_pred,
ymin = mean_pred, ymax = mean_pred),
size=0.7,col="red", width = 1)
```
We see than in both `jobclass`es, white peple have higher wages, even after controlling by other predictors (education, age, etc). However, asian people have higher wages than white people in Information jobs.
```{r}
grid_health_age <-
data_grid(wage,
health, age,
.model = model_int_rac_jc) %>%
add_predictions(model_int_rac_jc)
avg_by_health <-
grid_health_age %>%
group_by(health) %>%
summarise(mean_pred = mean(pred))
ggplot(grid_health_age) +
geom_jitter(aes(health, pred, color = health)) +
geom_crossbar(
data = avg_by_health,
aes(
x = health,
y = mean_pred,
ymin = mean_pred,
ymax = mean_pred
),
size = 0.5,
col = "red",
width = 1
)
```
We see that even after controlling for other predictors, people with "Very Good" health have higher wages than people with worse health condition.
(8) Fit some of the non-linear models investigated in this chapter to the `Auto` data set. Is there evidence for non-linear relationships in this data set? Create some informative plots to justify your answer.
```{r}
plot(Auto)
```
Some of the non-linear relationships we can spot in the last plot:
* displacement - mpg
* horsepower - mpg
* weight - mpg
* acceleration - mpg
* year - mpg
* displacement - weight
* displacement - acceleration
* displacement - origin
Let's put some of them in a non-linear model:
```{r}
model_auto1 <-
mgcv::gam(
mpg ~ factor(cylinders) + s(displacement) + s(horsepower) + s(weight) +
acceleration + year,
data = Auto
)
summary(model_auto1)
```
The low p-values in the F tests of the splines terms suggests that a non-linear fit for those predictors it's appropiate.
Now let's plot some of the non-linear relationships.
First: `cylinders` (categorical variable).
```{r}
auto_grid_cyl <-
Auto %>%
data_grid(cylinders,
.model = model_auto1)
preds_grid_cyl <- predict(model_auto1, newdata = auto_grid_cyl, se.fit = TRUE)
auto_grid_cyl %>%
mutate(
preds = preds_grid_cyl$fit,
lower_bound = preds - 2*preds_grid_cyl$se.fit,
upper_bound = preds + 2*preds_grid_cyl$se.fit
) %>%
ggplot(aes(factor(cylinders), preds, fill = factor(cylinders))) +
geom_col() +
geom_errorbar(aes(ymin=lower_bound, ymax=upper_bound), width=.2) +
labs(y = "pred_mpg")
```
Now `weight` (a continuous variable)
```{r}
auto_grid_weight <-
Auto %>%
data_grid(weight,
.model = model_auto1)
preds_grid_weight <-
predict(model_auto1, newdata = auto_grid_weight, se.fit = TRUE)
auto_grid_weight %>%
mutate(
preds = preds_grid_weight$fit,
lower_bound = preds - 2*preds_grid_weight$se.fit,
upper_bound = preds + 2*preds_grid_weight$se.fit
) %>%
ggplot(aes(weight, preds)) +
geom_line() +
geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower_bound, ymax = upper_bound), alpha = 0.5,
fill = "dodgerblue3") +
labs(y = "pred_mpg")
```
Finally `horsepower` vs `mpg`:
```{r}
auto_grid_horsepower <-
Auto %>%
data_grid(horsepower,
.model = model_auto1)
preds_grid_horsepower <-
predict(model_auto1, newdata = auto_grid_horsepower, se.fit = TRUE)
auto_grid_horsepower %>%
mutate(
preds = preds_grid_horsepower$fit,
lower_bound = preds - 2*preds_grid_horsepower$se.fit,
upper_bound = preds + 2*preds_grid_horsepower$se.fit
) %>%
ggplot(aes(horsepower, preds)) +
geom_line() +
geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower_bound, ymax = upper_bound), alpha = 0.5,
fill = "dodgerblue3") +
labs(y = "pred_mpg")
```
(9) This question uses the variables `dis` (the weighted mean of distances to five Boston employment centers) and `nox` (nitrogen oxides concentration in parts per 10 million) from the Boston data. We will treat `dis` as the predictor and `nox` as the response.
(a) Use the `poly()` function to fit a cubic polynomial regression to predict `nox` using `dis`. Report the regression output, and plot the resulting data and polynomial fits.
```{r}
boston <- MASS::Boston %>% as_tibble()
nox_model1 <-
lm(nox ~ poly(dis, 3), data = boston)
summary(nox_model1)
```
```{r}
plot(nox_model1)
```
Removing a high leverage point
```{r}
boston %>%
filter(row_number() != 354) %>%
lm(nox ~ poly(dis, 3), data = .) %>%
plot()
```
There isn't much improvement.
Now let's plot the fit itself:
```{r}
boston_grid_dis <-
boston %>%
data_grid(
dis,
.model = nox_model1
)
predicts_dis <- predict(nox_model1, newdata = boston_grid_dis,
se.fit = TRUE)
boston_grid_dis %>%
mutate(
pred_nox = predicts_dis$fit,
se = predicts_dis$se.fit,
lower = pred_nox - 2*se,
upper = pred_nox + 2*se
) %>%
ggplot(aes(dis, pred_nox)) +
geom_line(color = "deepskyblue4", size = 1.2) +
geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower, ymax = upper),
alpha = 0.2,
fill = "deepskyblue4") +
geom_point(data = boston,
aes(dis, nox),
alpha = 0.2)
```
(b) Plot the polynomial fits for a range of different polynomial degrees (say, from 1 to 10), and report the associated residual sum of squares.
```{r}
fits_nox <-
tibble(
degrees = 1:10,
fits = map(degrees, ~ lm(nox ~ poly(dis, .), data = boston)),
predicts = map(fits, ~ predict(., newdata = boston_grid_dis,
se.fit = TRUE))
)
plot_nox_fits <- function(predicts_dis) {
boston_grid_dis %>%
mutate(
pred_nox = predicts_dis$fit,
se = predicts_dis$se.fit,
lower = pred_nox - 2 * se,
upper = pred_nox + 2 * se
) %>%
ggplot(aes(dis, pred_nox)) +
geom_line(color = "deepskyblue4", size = 1.2) +
geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower, ymax = upper),
alpha = 0.2,
fill = "deepskyblue4") +
geom_point(data = boston,
aes(dis, nox),
alpha = 0.2)
}
map(fits_nox$predicts, plot_nox_fits)
```
Reporting the RSS:
```{r}
fits_nox %>%
mutate(rss = map_dbl(fits,
~ sum((broom::augment(
.
)[[".resid"]]) ^ 2))) %>%
ggplot(aes(degrees, rss)) +
geom_line()
```
As expected, it always goes down as we increse the degrees, because we're computing the error on the training data.
(c) Perform cross-validation or another approach to select the optimal degree for the polynomial, and explain your results.
```{r}
dis_mse_by_grade <- function(grade) {
boston %>%
crossv_kfold(k = 20) %>%
mutate(model = map(train, ~ lm(nox ~ poly(dis, grade), data = .))) %>%
mutate(predicted =
map2(model, test, ~ broom::augment(.x, newdata = .y))) %>%
unnest(c(.id, predicted)) %>%
group_by(.id) %>%
summarise(mse = mean((.fitted - nox) ^ 2)) %>%
summarise(mean(mse))
}
mse_by_grade <-
tibble(
grade = 1:10,
mse = map(grade, dis_mse_by_grade)
) %>%
unnest(mse)
ggplot(mse_by_grade,
aes(factor(grade), `mean(mse)`,
group = 1)) +
geom_line() +
geom_vline(xintercept = which.min(mse_by_grade$`mean(mse)`),
color = "red")
```
Using a third degree polynomial minimizes the Test MSE, so it's probably the optimal degree for the polynomial.
Also, the high fluctuation in MSE that appears as we use polynomils of grade higher than 6 it's striking.
(d) Use the `bs()` function to fit a regression spline to predict `nox` using `dis`. Report the output for the fit using four degrees of freedom. How did you choose the knots? Plot the resulting fit.
```{r}
fit_bs_nox <- lm(nox ~ bs(dis, df = 4), data = boston)
fit_bs_nox %>% summary()
```
When we use the `df` argument, the knot(s) are chosen automatically based on quantiles. In this case, it should be one knot, located in the 50th percentile (median) of `dis`.
```{r}
attr(bs(boston$dis, df = 4), "knots")
```
Plotting the fit (plus a vertical line indicating the knot)
```{r}
dis_lims <- range(boston$dis)
boston_range_dis <-
tibble(dis = seq(from = dis_lims[1],
to = dis_lims[2],
by = 0.01))
predict_dis_bs <- predict(fit_bs_nox, newdata = boston_range_dis,
se.fit = TRUE)
boston_range_dis %>%
mutate(
pred_nox = predict_dis_bs$fit,
se = predict_dis_bs$se.fit,
lower = pred_nox - 2*se,
upper = pred_nox + 2*se
) %>%
ggplot(aes(dis, pred_nox)) +
geom_line(color = "deepskyblue4", size = 1.2) +
geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower, ymax = upper),
alpha = 0.2,
fill = "deepskyblue4") +
geom_point(data = boston,
aes(dis, nox),
alpha = 0.2) +
geom_vline(xintercept = 3.20745,
color = "red1")
```
(e) Now fit a regression spline for a range of degrees of freedom, and plot the resulting fits and report the resulting RSS. Describe the results obtained.
```{r}
fits_nox_bs <-
tibble(
dfs = 3:20,
fits = map(dfs, ~lm(nox ~ bs(dis, df = .), data = boston)),
predicts = map(fits, ~predict(., newdata = boston_range_dis,
se.fit = TRUE))
)
plot_nox_fits <- function(predicts_dis) {
boston_range_dis %>%
mutate(
pred_nox = predicts_dis$fit,
se = predicts_dis$se.fit,
lower = pred_nox - 2 * se,
upper = pred_nox + 2 * se
) %>%
ggplot(aes(dis, pred_nox)) +
geom_line(color = "deepskyblue4", size = 1.2) +
geom_ribbon(aes(ymin = lower, ymax = upper),
alpha = 0.2,
fill = "deepskyblue4") +
geom_point(data = boston,
aes(dis, nox),
alpha = 0.2)
}
map(fits_nox_bs$predicts, plot_nox_fits)
# TODO: challenge, add the knots to the plots *programatically*
```
Resulting RSS (residual sum of squares)
```{r}
fits_nox_bs <- fits_nox_bs %>%
mutate(rss = map_dbl(fits,
~ sum((broom::augment(
.
)[[".resid"]]) ^ 2)))
fits_nox_bs %>% select(dfs, rss)
```
Plot of the RSS:
```{r}
ggplot(fits_nox_bs, aes(dfs, rss)) +
geom_line()
```
As expected, RSS in trainging data goes down as degrees of freedom goes up.
(f) Perform cross-validation or another approach in order to select the best degrees of freedom for a regression spline on this data. Describe your results.
```{r}
dis_mse_by_df_bs <- function(df) {
boston %>%
crossv_kfold(k = 30) %>%
mutate(model = map(train, ~ lm(nox ~ bs(dis, df = df), data = .))) %>%
mutate(predicted =
map2(model, test, ~ broom::augment(.x, newdata = .y))) %>%
unnest(c(.id, predicted)) %>%
group_by(.id) %>%
summarise(mse = mean((.fitted - nox) ^ 2)) %>%
summarise(mean(mse))
}
mse_by_df <-
tibble(
df = 3:20,
mse = map(df, dis_mse_by_df_bs)
) %>%
unnest(mse)
ggplot(mse_by_df,
aes(factor(df), `mean(mse)`,
group = 1)) +
geom_line() +
geom_vline(xintercept = which.min(mse_by_df$`mean(mse)`),
color = "red")
```
Although the MSE is minimized with 10 degrees of freedom, we see very little variation above 5 degrees. Since less degrees is prefered when there is no clear advantage of adding more complexity, then I would use `df = 5`.
(10) This question relates to the `College` data set.
(a) Split the data into a training set and a test set. Using out-of-state tuition as the response and the other variables as the predictors, perform forward stepwise selection on the training set in order to identify a satisfactory model that uses just a subset of the predictors.
Train/test split:
```{r}
college_train <-
College %>%
as_tibble(rownames = "rowname") %>%
sample_frac(size = 0.5)
college_test <-
College %>%
as_tibble(rownames = "rowname") %>%
anti_join(college_train, by = "rowname")
```
```{r}
forwardselection <- regsubsets(Outstate ~ .,
data = select(college_train, -rowname),
method = "forward")
summary(forwardselection)
forwardmodels <-
tibble(
metric = c("adjr2", "cp", "bic"),
best_model = c(
summary(forwardselection)[["adjr2"]] %>% which.max(),
summary(forwardselection)[["cp"]] %>% which.min(),
summary(forwardselection)[["bic"]] %>% which.min()
)
)
forwardmodels
```
I'm chosing the 6th model, which is the one with lower BIC.
```{r}
forwardselection %>% coef(id = 6)
```
(b) Fit a GAM on the training data, using out-of-state tuition as the response and the features selected in the previous step as the predictors. Plot the results, and explain your findings.
```{r}
gam_college <-
gam(Outstate ~ Private + s(Room.Board) + Terminal + s(perc.alumni) +
s(Expend) + s(Grad.Rate),
data = college_train)
summary(gam_college)
```
```{r}
plot(gam_college)
```
At first I tried to specify all continuous predictors as smoothing splines, but the results showed that for `Terminal` we can not reject the null hypothesis that its effect is linear, so in a second specification I left it as a linear variable.
But then, the coefficient for `Terminal` as a linear variable also showed to be non-significant (which is striking, since this variable was chosen by forward feature selection).
A possible explanation is that FFS chooses the variables in the context of a completely linear model, and now the smoothing splines of other variables have picked up some of the effect that was previously attributed to `Terminal` in FFS.
(c) Evaluate the model obtained on the test set, and explain the results obtained.
Computing the RSS:
```{r}
(college_test$Outstate - predict(gam_college, newdata = college_test))^2 %>%
sum()
```
Plotting the residuals:
```{r}
college_test %>%
add_predictions(gam_college) %>%
mutate(resid = Outstate - pred) %>%
ggplot(aes(Outstate, resid)) +
geom_point() +
geom_smooth() +
geom_hline(yintercept = 0, color = "red", size = 1)
```
It seems to exist a pattern in the residuals plot, which signals the existence of patterns in the data that have not been captured by our model.
(d) For which variables, if any, is there evidence of a non-linear relationship with the response?
There is evidence of non-linear relationships for all the continuous variables in the model, except for `Terminal`.
(11) In Section 7.7, it was mentioned that GAMs are generally fit using a backfitting approach. The idea behind backfitting is actually quite simple. We will now explore backfitting in the context of multiple linear regression.
Suppose that we would like to perform multiple linear regression, but we do not have software to do so. Instead, we only have software to perform simple linear regression. Therefore, we take the following iterative approach: we repeatedly hold all but one coefficient estimate fixed at its current value, and update only that coefficient estimate using a simple linear regression. The process is continued until convergence—that is, until the coefficient estimates stop changing.
We now try this out on a toy example.
(a) Generate a response $Y$ and two predictors $X_1$ and $X_2$, with $n = 100$.
```{r}
set.seed(1989)
toy_df <-
tibble(
x1 = rnorm(100),
x2 = rnorm(100),
e = rnorm(100),
y = 2*x1 + 1.5*x2 + e
)
```
(b) Initialize $\hatβ_1$ to take on a value of your choice. It does not matter what value you choose.
```{r}
b1 <- 40
```
(c) Keeping $\hatβ_1$ fixed, fit the model $Y − \hatβ_1X_1 = β_0 + β_2X_2 + \epsilon$.
```{r}
toy_df <- toy_df %>%
mutate(a = y - b1*x1)
b2 <- lm(a ~ x2, data = toy_df)$coef[2]
b2
```
(c) Keeping $\hatβ_2$ fixed, fit the model $Y − \hatβ_2X_2 = β_0 + β_1X_1 + \epsilon$.
```{r}
toy_df <- toy_df %>%
mutate(a = y - b2*x2)
b1 <- lm(a ~ x1, data = toy_df)$coef[2]
b1
```
(e) Write a for loop to repeat (c) and (d) 1,000 times. Report the estimates of
$\hatβ_0$, $\hatβ_1$,and $\hatβ_1$ at each iteration of the for loop.
Create a plot in which each of these values is displayed, with $\hatβ_0$,
$\hatβ_1$,and $\hatβ_2$ each shown in a different color.
```{r}
iterations <- 1:1000
placeholder_coeff <- 40
iter_df <-
tibble(
iterations = iterations
)
fit_coefs <- function(iter, df) {
coefs <- numeric(3)
if (iter %% 2 == 1) {
# Access the previous iteration coeff (or place)
coefs[2] <- placeholder_coeff
df <- df %>%
mutate(a = y - coefs[2]*x1)
temp_lm <- lm(a ~ x2, data = df)
coefs[1] <- temp_lm$coef[1]
coefs[3] <- temp_lm$coef[2]
placeholder_coeff <<- coefs[3]
} else {
coefs[3] <- placeholder_coeff
df <- df %>%
mutate(a = y - coefs[3]*x2)
temp_lm <- lm(a ~ x1, data = df)
coefs[1] <- temp_lm$coef[1]
coefs[2] <- temp_lm$coef[2]
placeholder_coeff <<- coefs[2]
}
coefs
}
iter_df <-
iter_df %>%
mutate(coefs = map(iterations, fit_coefs, df = toy_df)) %>%
unnest(coefs) %>%
mutate(coef_name = rep(c("b0", "b1", "b2"), 1000))
(iter_df_pivoted <- iter_df %>%
pivot_wider(
id_cols = iterations,
names_from = coef_name,
values_from = coefs
))
```
```{r}
ggplot(iter_df, aes(iterations, coefs, color = coef_name)) +
geom_line()
```
(f) Compare your answer in (e) to the results of simply performing multiple linear regression to predict $Y$ using $X_1$ and $X_2$.Use the `abline()` function to overlay those multiple linear regression coefficient estimates on the plot obtained in (e).
```{r}
lm_both_coefs <-
lm(y ~ x1 + x2, data = toy_df)
(coefs_mult_reg <-
lm_both_coefs$coefficients)
```
```{r}
ggplot(iter_df, aes(iterations, coefs)) +
geom_line(aes(color = coef_name)) +
geom_hline(yintercept = coefs_mult_reg[1], linetype = "dashed") +
geom_hline(yintercept = coefs_mult_reg[2], linetype = "dashed") +
geom_hline(yintercept = coefs_mult_reg[3], linetype = "dashed")
```
(g) On this data set, how many backfitting iterations were required in order to obtain a “good” approximation to the multiple regression coefficient estimates?
Just a few, at the sixth iteration the coefficient estimates are almost equal to those obtained in multiple linear regression.
(12) This problem is a continuation of the previous exercise. In a toy example with $p = 100$, show that one can approximate the multiple linear regression coefficient estimates by repeatedly performing simple linear regression in a backfitting procedure. How many backfitting iterations are required in order to obtain a “good” approximation to the multiple regression coefficient estimates? Create a plot to justify your answer.
First we need to create a new toy dataframe, this time with p = 100.
I'm going to try two ways to do it.
First with `purrr` and data frames:
```{r}
start <- Sys.time()
#
df_sim <-
map_dfc(1:100, ~rnorm(100)) %>%
rename_all(funs(c(str_c("x", 1:100))))
# Now create a random vector of 100 'true' coeficients
coefs <- rnorm(100, mean = 1, sd = 20)
# Obtain Y vector by multiplying each column to corresponding coefficient
y <- map(1:100,
~magrittr::multiply_by(df_sim[[.]], coefs[.])) %>%
Reduce(`+`, .)
# Add column y to df_sim
df_sim <- df_sim %>%
mutate(y = y)
Sys.time() - start
```
And now using matrix multiplication, and then converting to data frame:
```{r}
start <- Sys.time()
matrix_sim <-
matrix(rnorm(10000), ncol = 100)
# Create coefficients
coefs <- rnorm(100, mean = 1, sd = 40)
# Multiply to get y
y <- matrix_sim %*% coefs
# Convert to dataframe
df_sim <-
matrix_sim %>%
as_tibble() %>%
rename_all(funs(c(str_c("x", 1:100)))) %>%
mutate(y = y[,1])
Sys.time() - start
```
(Note that matrix multiplication method is faster)
Now we need to estimate coefficients:
```{r}
iterations <- 1:1000
list_coefs <- vector("list", length = 1001)
# Declaring vector of coefs with an "initialization" value
coefs_template <- rep(40, 100)
names(coefs_template) <- str_c("b", 1:100)
list_coefs[[1]] <- coefs_template
for (i in iterations) {
n_coef_update <- i %% 100
if (n_coef_update == 0) n_coef_update <- 100
name_predictor_update <- str_c("x", n_coef_update)
# Define a "response variable" which is the residual of Y after predicting with all the coefficients except the "updating" one
predictor_update <- df_sim %>% pull(name_predictor_update)
predictors_holdout <- df_sim %>%
select(-one_of(name_predictor_update, "y"))
y_predicted_by_holdout <- as.matrix(predictors_holdout) %*% list_coefs[[i]][-n_coef_update]
y_residual <- pull(df_sim, y) - y_predicted_by_holdout[,1]
coef_updated <-
lm(y_residual ~ predictor_update) %>%
coef() %>%
magrittr::extract("predictor_update")
list_coefs[[i+1]] <- list_coefs[[i]]
list_coefs[[i+1]][n_coef_update] <- coef_updated
}
```
Now let's plot the results:
```{r}
(
estimates_from_iteration <-
list_coefs %>%
enframe(name = "iteration") %>%
mutate(value = map(value, enframe, name = "coef", value = "estimate")) %>%
unnest(value)
)
```
```{r}
ggplot(estimates_from_iteration,
aes(iteration, estimate, color = coef)) +
geom_line()
```
Posible improvements to the plot:
* Include values estimated with multiple linear regression as reference (maybe as horizontal line, or points in the last iteration).
* "Compress" the X axis, hiding the data points when a coefficient was not updated
```{r, fig.asp = 3}
estimates_iteration_compressed <-
estimates_from_iteration %>%
group_by(coef, estimate) %>%
summarise(iteration = min(iteration)) %>%
mutate(order_iteration = min_rank(iteration))
ggplot(estimates_iteration_compressed,
aes(order_iteration, estimate, color = coef)) +
geom_line(size = 0.8, show.legend = FALSE) +
scale_x_continuous(breaks = 1:11)
```
Now let's add the values obtained through multiple linear regression (just one estimation in `lm()`):
```{r}
(
coefs_lm <-
lm(y ~ ., df_sim) %>%
coef() %>%
enframe(name = "coef", value = "estimate") %>%
filter(coef != "(Intercept)") %>%
mutate(coef = str_replace(coef, "x", "b"))
)
```
```{r, fig.asp=3}
ggplot(estimates_iteration_compressed,
aes(order_iteration, estimate, color = coef)) +
geom_line(size = 0.8, show.legend = FALSE) +
scale_x_continuous(breaks = 1:11) +
geom_point(data = coefs_lm,
aes(x = 11.1),
show.legend = FALSE)
```