I am trying to refit a full model of class merMod with just the intercept (the null model). However, refitting using update.merMod gives a different answer than fitting the null model by hand, e.g.:
# Generate random data
set.seed(9)
dat <- data.frame(
x = do.call(c, lapply(1:5, function(x) rnorm(100, x))),
random = letters[1:5]
)
dat$y = rnbinom(500, mu = exp(dat$x), size = 1)
library(lme4)
# Get full model
full <- glmer.nb(y ~ x + (1 | random), dat)
# Write out intercept-only model by hand
null <- glmer.nb(y ~ 1 + (1 | random), dat)
# Update
null2 <- update(full, . ~ 1 -. + (1 | random))
VarCorr(null)
VarCorr(null2)
Any idea why this is an how I can use update to get the same vcov matrix?
Related
Predicting values in new data from an lmer model throws an error when a period is used to represent predictors. Is there any way around this?
The answer to this similar question offers a way to automatically write out the full formula instead of using the period, but I'm curious if there's a way to get predictions from new data just using the period.
Here's a reproducible example:
mydata <- data.frame(
groups = rep(1:3, each = 100),
x = rnorm(300),
dv = rnorm(300)
)
train_subset <- sample(1:300, 300 * .8)
train <- mydata[train_subset,]
test <- mydata[-train_subset,]
# Returns an error
mod <- lmer(dv ~ . - groups + (1 | groups), data = train)
predict(mod, newdata = test)
predict(mod) # getting predictions for the original data works
# Writing the full formula without the period does not return an error, even though it's the exact same model
mod <- lmer(dv ~ x + (1 | groups), data = train)
predict(mod, newdata = test)
This should be fixed in the development branch of lme4 now. You can install from GitHub (see first line below) or wait a few weeks (early April-ish) for a new version to hit CRAN.
remotes::install_github("lme4/lme4") ## you will need compilers etc.
mydata <- data.frame(
groups = rep(1:3, each = 100),
x = rnorm(300),
dv = rnorm(300)
)
train_subset <- sample(1:300, 300 * .8)
train <- mydata[train_subset,]
test <- mydata[-train_subset,]
# Returns an error
mod <- lmer(dv ~ . - groups + (1 | groups), data = train)
p1 <- predict(mod, newdata = test)
mod2 <- lmer(dv ~ x + (1 | groups), data = train)
p2 <- predict(mod2, newdata = test)
identical(p1, p2) ## TRUE
I have a model such as:
mymod = lmer(y ~ x1 + x2 + (x1 | id) , data = mydata)
I know I can get the model matrix from the fitted object using getME but is there a way to obtain the model matrix for the fixed effects without first fitting the model:
You can do this using the lformula function in the lme4 package. This rerurns an object which has holds the transpose of this matrix, Zt:
library(lme4)
# create some toy data
dt <- expand.grid(x1 = 1:4, x2 = 5:6, id = LETTERS[1:20], reps = 1:2)
# this is the model in the OP:
myFormula = "y ~ x1 + x2 + (x1 | id)"
# for lFormula to work we need y in the data frame
# so just put a vector of 1s since that will not affect the random effects model matrix:
dt$y <- 1
Then:
foo <- lFormula(eval(myFormula), dt)
Z <- t(as.matrix(foo$reTrms$Zt))
where Z is the model matrix for the random effects that you requested.
Try getME(lmer(y ~ x1 + x2 + (x1 | id) , data = mydata)).
I want to create a function which will perform panel regression with 3-level dummies included.
Let's consider within model with time effects :
library(plm)
fit_panel_lr <- function(y, x) {
x[, length(x) + 1] <- y
#adding dummies
mtx <- matrix(0, nrow = nrow(x), ncol = 3)
mtx[cbind(seq_len(nrow(mtx)), 1 + (as.integer(unlist(x[, 2])) - min(as.integer(unlist(x[, 2])))) %% 3)] <- 1
colnames(mtx) <- paste0("dummy_", 1:3)
#converting to pdataframe and adding dummy variables
x <- pdata.frame(x)
x <- cbind(x, mtx)
#performing panel regression
varnames <- names(x)[3:(length(x))]
varnames <- varnames[!(varnames == names(y))]
form <- paste0(varnames, collapse = "+")
x_copy <- data.frame(x)
form <- as.formula(paste0(names(y), "~", form,'-1'))
params <- list(
formula = form, data = x_copy, model = "within",
effect = "time"
)
pglm_env <- list2env(params, envir = new.env())
model_plm <- do.call("plm", params, envir = pglm_env)
model_plm
}
However, if I use data :
data("EmplUK", package="plm")
dep_var<-EmplUK['capital']
df1<-EmplUK[-6]
In output I will get :
> fit_panel_lr(dep_var, df1)
Model Formula: capital ~ sector + emp + wage + output + dummy_1 + dummy_2 +
dummy_3 - 1
<environment: 0x000001ff7d92a3c8>
Coefficients:
sector emp wage output
-0.055179 0.328922 0.102250 -0.002912
How come that in formula dummies are considered and in coefficients are not ? Is there any rational explanation or I did something wrong ?
One point why you do not see the dummies on the output is because they are linear dependent to the other data after the fixed-effect time transformation. They are dropped so what is estimable is estimated and output.
Find below some (not readily executable) code picking up your example from above:
dat <- cbind(EmplUK, mtx) # mtx being the dummy matrix constructed in your question's code for this data set
pdat <- pdata.frame(dat)
rhs <- paste(c("emp", "wage", "output", "dummy_1", "dummy_2", "dummy_3"), collapse = "+")
form <- paste("capital ~" , rhs)
form <- formula(form)
mod <- plm(form, data = pdat, model = "within", effect = "time")
detect.lindep(mod$model) # before FE time transformation (original data) -> nothing offending
detect.lindep(model.matrix(mod)) # after FE time transformation -> dummies are offending
The help page for detect.lindep (?detect.lindep is included in package plm) has some more nice examples on linear dependence before and after FE transformation.
A suggestion:
As for constructing dummy variables, I suggest to use R's factor with three levels and not have the dummy matrix constructed yourself. Using a factor is typically more convinient and less error prone. It is converted to the binary dummies (treatment style) by your typical estimation function using the model.frame/model.matrix framework.
I have a linear model with lots of explaining variables (independent variables)
model <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2 + x3 + ... + x100)
some of which are linear depended on each other (multicollinearity).
I want the machine to search for the name of the explaining variable which has the highest VIF coefficient (x2 for example), delete it from the formula and then run the old lm function with the new formula
model <- lm(y ~ x1 + x3 + ... + x100)
I already learned how to retrieve the name of the explaining variable which has the highest VIF coefficient:
max_vif <- function(x) {
vifac <- data.frame(vif(x))
nameofmax <- rownames(which(vifac == max(vifac), arr.ind = TRUE))
return(nameofmax)
}
But I still don't understand how to search the needed explaining variable, delete it from the formula and run the function again.
We can use the update function and paste in the column that needs to be removed. We first can fit a model, and then use update to change that model's formula. The model formula can be expressed as a character string, which allows you to concatenate the general formula .~. and whatever variable(s) you'd like removed (using the minus sign -).
Here is an example:
fit1 <- lm(wt ~ mpg + cyl + am, data = mtcars)
coef(fit1)
# (Intercept) mpg cyl am
# 4.83597190 -0.09470611 0.08015745 -0.52182463
rm_var <- "am"
fit2 <- update(fit1, paste0(".~. - ", rm_var))
coef(fit2)
# (Intercept) mpg cyl
# 5.07595833 -0.11908115 0.08625557
Using max_vif we can wrap this into a function:
rm_max_vif <- function(x){
# find variable(s) needing to be removed
rm_var <- max_vif(x)
# concatenate with "-" to remove variable(s) from formula
rm_var <- paste(paste0("-", rm_var), collapse = " ")
# update model
update(x, paste0(".~.", rm_var))
}
Problem solved!
I created a list containing all variables for lm model:
Price <- list(y,x1,...,x100)
Then I used different way for setting lm model:
model <- lm(y ~ ., data = Price)
So we can just delete variable with the highest VIF from Price list.
With the function i already came up the code will be:
Price <- list(y,x1,x2,...,x100)
model <- lm(y ~ ., data = Price)
max_vif <- function(x) { # Function for finding name of variable with the highest VIF
vifac <- data.frame(vif(x))
nameofmax <- rownames(which(vifac == max(vifac), arr.ind = TRUE))
return(nameofmax)
}
n <- max(data.frame(vif(model)))
while(n >= 5) { # Loop for deleting variable with the highest VIF from `Price` list one after another, untill there is no VIF equal or higher then 5
Price[[m]] <- NULL
model_auto <- lm(y ~ ., data = Price)
m <- max_vif(model)
n <- max(data.frame(vif(model)))
}
Using different sources, I wrote a little function that creates a table with standard errors, t statistics and standard errors that are clustered according to a group variable "cluster" after a linear regression model. The code is as follows
cl1 <- function(modl,clust) {
# model is the regression model
# clust is the clustervariable
# id is a unique identifier in ids
library(plm)
library(lmtest)
# Get Formula
form <- formula(modl$call)
# Get Data frame
dat <- eval(modl$call$data)
dat$row <- rownames(dat)
dat$id <- ave(dat$row, dat[[deparse(substitute(clust))]], FUN =seq_along)
pdat <- pdata.frame(dat,
index=c("id", deparse(substitute(clust)))
, drop.index= F, row.names= T)
# # Regression
reg <- plm(form, data=pdat, model="pooling")
# # Adjustments
G <- length(unique(dat[, deparse(substitute(clust))]))
N <- length(dat[,deparse(substitute(clust))])
# # Resid degrees of freedom, adjusted
dfa <- (G/(G-1))*(N-1)/reg$df.residual
d.vcov <- dfa* vcovHC(reg, type="HC0", cluster="group", adjust=T)
table <- coeftest(reg, vcov=d.vcov)
# # Output: se, t-stat and p-val
cl1out <- data.frame(table[, 2:4])
names(cl1out) <- c("se", "tstat", "pval")
# # Cluster VCE
return(cl1out)
}
For a regression like reg1 <- lm (y ~ x1 + x2 , data= df), calling the function cl1(reg1, cluster) will work just fine.
However, if I use a model like reg2 <- lm(y ~ . , data=df), I will get the error message:
Error in terms.formula(object) : '.' in formula and no 'data' argument
After some tests, I am guessing that I can't use "." to signal "use all variables in the data frame" for {plm}. Is there a way I can do this with {plm}? Otherwise, any ideas on how I could improve my function in a way that does not use {plm} and that accepts all possible specifications of a linear model?
Indeed you can't use . notation for formula within plm pacakge.
data("Produc", package = "plm")
plm(gsp ~ .,data=Produc)
Error in terms.formula(object) : '.' in formula and no 'data' argument
One idea is to expand the formula when you have a .. Here is a custom function that does the job (surely is done within other packages):
expand_formula <-
function(form="A ~.",varNames=c("A","B","C")){
has_dot <- any(grepl('.',form,fixed=TRUE))
if(has_dot){
ii <- intersect(as.character(as.formula(form)),
varNames)
varNames <- varNames[!grepl(paste0(ii,collapse='|'),varNames)]
exp <- paste0(varNames,collapse='+')
as.formula(gsub('.',exp,form,fixed=TRUE))
}
else as.formula(form)
}
Now test it :
(eform = expand_formula("gsp ~ .",names(Produc)))
# gsp ~ state + year + pcap + hwy + water + util + pc + emp + unemp
plm(eform,data=Produc)
# Model Formula: gsp ~ state + year + pcap + hwy + water + util + pc + emp + unemp
# <environment: 0x0000000014c3f3c0>