I'm currently trying to use a GAM to calculate a rough estimation of expected goals model based purely on the commentary data from ESPN. However, all the data is either a categorical variable or a logical vector, so I'm not sure if there's a way to smooth, or if I should just use the factor names.
Here are my variables:
shot_where (factor): shot location (e.g. right side of the box)
assist_class (factor): type of assist (cross, through ball, pass)
follow_corner (logical): whether the shot follows a corner
shot_with (factor): right foot, left food, header
follow_set_piece (logical): whether the shot follows a set piece
I think I should just use the formula as just the variable names.
model <- bam(is_goal ~ shot_where + assist_class + follow_set_piece + shot_where + follow_corner + shot_where:shot_with, family = "binomial", method = "REML")
The shot_where and shot_with would incorporate any interactions between these two varaibles.
However, I was told I could smooth factor variables as well using the below structure.
model <- bam(is_goal ~ s(shot_where, bs = 'fs') + s(assist_class, bs = 'fs') + as.logical(follow_set_piece) +
as.logical(follow_corner) + s(shot_with, bs = 'fs'), data = model_data, family = "binomial", method = "REML")
This worked for creating a model, but I want to make sure this is a correct method of building the model. I've yet to see any information on using only factor/logical variables in a GAM model, so I thought it was worth asking.
If you only have categorical covariates then you aren't fitting a GAM, whether you fit the model with gam(), bam(), or something else.
What you are doing when you pass factor variables to s() using the fs basis like this
s(f, bs = 'fs')`
is creating a random intercept for each level of the factor f.
There's no smoothing going on here at all; the model is simply exploiting the equivalence of the Bayesian view of smoothing with random effects.
Given that none of your covariates could reasonably be considered random in the sense of a mixed effects model then the only justification for doing what you're doing might be as a computational trick.
Your first model is just a simple GLM (note the typo in the formula as shot_where is repeated twice in the formula.)
It's not clear to me why you are using bam() to fit this model; you're loosing computational efficiency that bam() provides by using method = 'REML'; it should be 'fREML' for bam() models. But as there is no smoothness selection going on in the first model you'd likely be better off using glm() to fit that model. If the issue is large sample sizes, there are several packages that can fit GLMs to large data, for example biglm and it's bigglm() function.
In the second model there is no smoothing going on but there is penalisation which is shrinking the estimates for the random intercepts toward zero. You're likely to get better performance on big data using the lme4 package or TMB and the glmmTMB package to fit what is a GLMM.
This is more of a theoretical question than about R, but let me provide a brief answer. Essentially, the most flexible model you could estimate would be one where you used the variables as factors. It also produces a model that is reasonably easily interpreted - where each coefficient gives you the expected difference in y between the reference level and the level represented by the dummy regressor.
Smoothing splines try to strike the appropriate bias-variance tradeoff. If you've got lots of data and relatively few categories in the categorical variables, there will be no real loss in efficiency for including all of the dummy regressors representing the categories and the bias will also be as small as possible. To the extent that the smoothing spline model is different from the one treating everything as factors, it is likely inducing bias without a corresponding increase in efficiency. If it were me, I would stick with a model that treats all of the categorical variables as factors.
Related
I am building a model using the mgcv package in r. The data has serial measures (data collected during scans 15 minutes apart in time, but discontinuously, e.g. there might be 5 consecutive scans on one day, and then none until the next day, etc.). The model has a binomial response, a random effect of day, a fixed effect, and three smooth effects. My understanding is that REML is the best fitting method for binomial models, but that this method cannot be specified using the gamm function for a binomial model. Thus, I am using the gam function, to allow for the use of REML fitting. When I fit the model, I am left with residual autocorrelation at a lag of 2 (i.e. at 30 minutes), assessed using ACF and PACF plots.
So, we wanted to include an autocorrelation structure in the model, but my understanding is that only the gamm function and not the gam function allows for the inclusion of such structures. I am wondering if there is anything I am missing and/or if there is a way to deal with autocorrelation with a binomial response variable in a GAMM built in mgcv.
My current model structure looks like:
gam(Response ~
s(Day, bs = "re") +
s(SmoothVar1, bs = "cs") +
s(SmoothVar2, bs = "cs") +
s(SmoothVar3, bs = "cs") +
as.factor(FixedVar),
family=binomial(link="logit"), method = "REML",
data = dat)
I tried thinning my data (using only every 3rd data point from consecutive scans), but found this overly restrictive to allow effects to be detected due to my relatively small sample size (only 42 data points left after thinning).
I also tried using the prior value of the binomial response variable as a factor in the model to account for the autocorrelation. This did appear to resolve the residual autocorrelation (based on the updated ACF/PACF plots), but it doesn't feel like the most elegant way to do so and I worry this added variable might be adjusting for more than just the autocorrelation (though it was not collinear with the other explanatory variables; VIF < 2).
I would use bam() for this. You don't need to have big data to fit a with bam(), you just loose some of the guarantees about convergence that you get with gam(). bam() will fit a GEE-like model with an AR(1) working correlation matrix, but you need to specify the AR parameter via rho. This only works for non-Gaussian families if you also set discrete = TRUE when fitting the model.
You could use gamm() with family = binomial() but this uses PQL to estimate the GLMM version of the GAMM and if your binomial counts are low this method isn't very good.
I need to perform glm (poisson) estimations with fixed-effects (say merely unit FE) and several regressors (RHS variables). I have an unbalanced panel dataset where most (~90%) observations have missing values (NA) for some but not all regressors.
fixest::feglm() can handle this and returns my fitted model.
However, to do so, it (and fixest::demean too) removes observations that have at least one regressor missing, before constructing the fixed-effect means.
In my case, I am afraid this implies not using a significant share of available information in the data.
Therefore, I would like to demean my variables by hand, to be able to include as much information as possible in each fixed-effect dimension's mean, and then run feglm on the demeaned data. However, this implies getting negative dependent variable values, which is not compatible with Poisson. If I run feglm with "poisson" family and my manually demeaned data, I (coherently) get: "Negative values of the dependent variable are not allowed for the "poisson" family.". The same error is returned with data demeaned with the fixest::demean function.
Question:
How does feglm handle negative values of the demeaned dependent variable? Is there a way (like some data transformation) to reproduce fepois on a fixed-effect in the formula with fepois on demeaned data and a no fixed-effect formula?
To use the example from fixest::demean documentation (with two-way fixed-effects):
data(trade)
base = trade
base$ln_dist = log(base$dist_km)
base$ln_euros = log(base$Euros)
# We center the two variables ln_dist and ln_euros
# on the factors Origin and Destination
X_demean = demean(X = base[, c("ln_dist", "ln_euros")],
fe = base[, c("Origin", "Destination")])
base[, c("ln_dist_dm", "ln_euros_dm")] = X_demean
and I would like to reproduce
est_fe = fepois(ln_euros ~ ln_dist | Origin + Destination, base)
with
est = fepois(ln_euros_dm ~ ln_dist_dm, base)
I think there are two main problems.
Modelling strategy
In general, it is important to be able to formally describe the estimated model.
In this case it wouldn't be possible to write down the model with a single equation, where the fixed-effects are estimated using all the data and other variables only on the non-missing observations. And if the model is not clear, then... maybe it's not a good model.
On the other hand, if your model is well defined, then removing random observations should not change the expectation of the coefficients, only their variance. So again, if your model is well specified, you shouldn't worry too much.
By suggesting that observations with missing values are relevant to estimate the fixed-effects coefficients (or stated differently, that they are used to demean some variables) you are implying that these observations are not randomly distributed. And now you should worry.
Just using these observations to demean the variables wouldn't remove the bias on the estimated coefficients due to the selection to non-missingness. That's a deeper problem that cannot be removed by technical tricks but rather by a profound understanding of the data.
GLM
There is a misunderstanding with GLM. GLM is a super smart trick to estimate maximum likelihood models with OLS (there's a nice description here). It was developed and used at a time when regular optimization techniques were very expensive in terms of computational time, and it was a way to instead employ well developed and fast OLS techniques to perform equivalent estimations.
GLM is an iterative process where typical OLS estimations are performed at each step, the only changes at each iteration concern the weights associated to each observation. Therefore, since it's a regular OLS process, techniques to perform fast OLS estimations with multiple fixed-effects can be leveraged (as is in the fixest package).
So actually, you could do what you want... but only within the OLS step of the GLM algorithm. By no means you should demean the data before running GLM because, well, it makes no sense (the FWL theorem has absolutely no hold here).
I am conducting an analysis of where on the landscape a predator encounters potential prey. My response data is binary with an Encounter location = 1 and a Random location = 0 and my independent variables are continuous but have been rescaled.
I originally used a GLM structure
glm_global <- glm(Encounter ~ Dist_water_cs+coverMN_cs+I(coverMN_cs^2)+
Prey_bio_stand_cs+Prey_freq_stand_cs+Dist_centre_cs,
data=Data_scaled, family=binomial)
but realized that this failed to account for potential spatial-autocorrelation in the data (a spline correlogram showed high residual correlation up to ~1000m).
Correlog_glm_global <- spline.correlog (x = Data_scaled[, "Y"],
y = Data_scaled[, "X"],
z = residuals(glm_global,
type = "pearson"), xmax = 1000)
I attempted to account for this by implementing a GLMM (in lme4) with the predator group as the random effect.
glmm_global <- glmer(Encounter ~ Dist_water_cs+coverMN_cs+I(coverMN_cs^2)+
Prey_bio_stand_cs+Prey_freq_stand_cs+Dist_centre_cs+(1|Group),
data=Data_scaled, family=binomial)
When comparing AIC of the global GLMM (1144.7) to the global GLM (1149.2) I get a Delta AIC value >2 which suggests that the GLMM fits the data better. However I am still getting essentially the same correlation in the residuals, as shown on the spline correlogram for the GLMM model).
Correlog_glmm_global <- spline.correlog (x = Data_scaled[, "Y"],
y = Data_scaled[, "X"],
z = residuals(glmm_global,
type = "pearson"), xmax = 10000)
I also tried explicitly including the Lat*Long of all the locations as an independent variable but results are the same.
After reading up on options, I tried running Generalized Estimating Equations (GEEs) in “geepack” thinking this would allow me more flexibility with regards to explicitly defining the correlation structure (as in GLS models for normally distributed response data) instead of being limited to compound symmetry (which is what we get with GLMM). However I realized that my data still demanded the use of compound symmetry (or “exchangeable” in geepack) since I didn’t have temporal sequence in the data. When I ran the global model
gee_global <- geeglm(Encounter ~ Dist_water_cs+coverMN_cs+I(coverMN_cs^2)+
Prey_bio_stand_cs+Prey_freq_stand_cs+Dist_centre_cs,
id=Pride, corstr="exchangeable", data=Data_scaled, family=binomial)
(using scaled or unscaled data made no difference so this is with scaled data for consistency)
suddenly none of my covariates were significant. However, being a novice with GEE modelling I don’t know a) if this is a valid approach for this data or b) whether this has even accounted for the residual autocorrelation that has been evident throughout.
I would be most appreciative for some constructive feedback as to 1) which direction to go once I realized that the GLMM model (with predator group as a random effect) still showed spatially autocorrelated Pearson residuals (up to ~1000m), 2) if indeed GEE models make sense at this point and 3) if I have missed something in my GEE modelling. Many thanks.
Taking the spatial autocorrelation into account in your model can be done is many ways. I will restrain my response to R main packages that deal with random effects.
First, you could go with the package nlme, and specify a correlation structure in your residuals (many are available : corGaus, corLin, CorSpher ...). You should try many of them and keep the best model. In this case the spatial autocorrelation in considered as continous and could be approximated by a global function.
Second, you could go with the package mgcv, and add a bivariate spline (spatial coordinates) to your model. This way, you could capture a spatial pattern and even map it. In a strict sens, this method doesn't take into account the spatial autocorrelation, but it may solve the problem. If the space is discret in your case, you could go with a random markov field smooth. This website is very helpfull to find some examples : https://www.fromthebottomoftheheap.net
Third, you could go with the package brms. This allows you to specify very complex models with other correlation structure in your residuals (CAR and SAR). The package use a bayesian approach.
I hope this help. Good luck
I have a linear mixed model which is run 50 different times in a loop.
Each time the model is run, I want the response variable b to be weighted inversely with the variance. So if the variance of b is small, I want the weighting to be bigger and vice versa. This is a simplified version of the model:
model <- lme(b ~ type, random = ~1|replicate,weights = ~ I(1/b))
Here's the R data files:
b: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ziipdtsih5f0252/b.Rdata?dl=0
type: https://www.dropbox.com/s/90682ewib1lw06e/type.Rdata?dl=0
replicate: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kvrtao5i2g4v3ik/replicate.Rdata?dl=0
I'm trying to do this using the weights option in lme. Right now I have this as:
weights = ~ I(1/b).
But I don't think this is correct....maybe weights = ~ I(1/var(b)) ??
I also want to adjust this slightly as b consists of two types of data specified in the factor variable (of 2 levels) type.
I want to inversely weight the variance of each of these two levels separately. How could I do this?
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about weighting the response variable in this manner. The descriptions I have found in the R-SIG-mixed-models mailing list refer to using inverse weighting derived from the predictor variables, either the fixed effects or the random effects. The weighting is used in minimizing the deviations of approximation of the model fits to the response. There is a function that returns the fixed effects variance (a sub-class of the varFunc family of functions) and it has a help page (linked from the weights section of the ?gls page):
?varFixed
?varFunc
It requires a formula object as its argument. So my original guess was:
model <- lme(b ~ type, random = ~1|replicate, weights = varFixed( ~type) )
Which you proved incorrect. How about seeing if this works:
model <- lme(b ~ type, random = ~1|replicate, weights = varFixed( ~1| type) )
(My continuing guess is that this weighting is the default situation and specifying these particular weights may not be needed. The inverse nature of the weighting is implied and does not need to be explicitly stated with "1/type". In the case of mixed models the "correct" construction depends on the design and the prior science and none of this has been presented, so this is really only a syntactic comment and not an endorsement of this model. I did not download the files. Seems rather odd to have three separate files and no code for linking them into a dataframe. Generally one would want to have a single data object within which the column names would be used in the formulas of the regression function. (I also suspect this is the default behavior of this function and so my untested prediction is that that you would be getting no change by omitting that 'weights' parameter.)
I would like to run repeated measure anova in R using regression models instead an 'Analysis of Variance' (AOV) function.
Here is an example of my AOV code for 3 within-subject factors:
m.aov<-aov(measure~(task*region*actiontype) + Error(subject/(task*region*actiontype)),data)
Can someone give me the exact syntax to run the same analysis using regression models? I want to make sure to respect the independence of residuals, i.e. use specific error terms as with AOV.
In a previous post I read an answer of the type:
lmer(DV ~ 1 + IV1*IV2*IV3 + (IV1*IV2*IV3|Subject), dataset))
I am really not sure about this solution since it still treats variables as between subjects, and I don't understand how adding random factors would change this.
Does someone know how to run repeated measure anova with lm/lmer taking into account residual independence?
Many thanks,
Solene
I have some worked examples with more detail here: https://keithlohse.github.io/mixed_effects_models/lohse_MER_chapter_02.html
But if you want to get a mixed model that is homologous to your ANOVA, you can include random intercepts for your each subject:factor with your within-subject factors. E.g.,
aov(DV~W1*W2*W3 + Error(SUBJECT/(W1*W2*W3)),data)
has a mixed-model equivalent of:
lmer(speed ~
# Fixed Effects
W1*W2*W3 +
# Random Effects
(1|SUBJECT) + (1|W1:SUBJECT) + (1|W2:SUBJECT) + (1|W3:SUBJECT),
data = DATA,
REML = TRUE)
With REML set to TRUE and a balanced design, you should get degrees of freedom and f-values that are identical to your ANOVA. ML tends to underestimate variance components, so if you are comparing nested models and need to use ML your results will not match precisely. If you are not comparing nested models and can use REML, then the ANOVA and mixed-model should match (again, in a balanced design).
To #skan's earlier answer and other ideas people might have, I am not saying this is THE random-effects structure (as it might be more appropriate to include random slopes for W1 compared to random-intercepts), but if you have one observation per subject:condition, then these random-effects produce an equivalent result.
If your aov example is right (maybe you don't want to nest things) you want this:
lmer(measure~(task*region*actiontype) + 1(1|subject/(task:region:actiontype))
If residual independence means intercept and slope independently calculated you need to specify them separately:
+(1|yourfactors)+(0+variable|yourfactors)
or use the symbol:
+(1||yourfactors)
Anyway if you read the help files you can find that lme4 can't deal with the most general problems.