I've used lm() to fit multiple regression models, for multiple (~1 million) response variables in R. Eg.
allModels <- lm(t(responseVariablesMatrix) ~ modelMatrix)
This returns an object of class "mlm", which is like a huge object containing all the models. I want to get the t-statistic for the first coefficient in each model, which I can do using the summary(allModels) function, but its very slow on this large data and returns a lot of unwanted info too.
Is there a faster way of calculating the t-statistic manually, that might be faster than using the summary() function
Thanks!
You can hack the summary.lm() function to get just the bits you need and leave the rest.
If you have
nVariables <- 5
nObs <- 15
y <- rnorm(nObs)
x <- matrix(rnorm(nVariables*nObs),nrow=nObs)
allModels <-lm(y~x)
Then this is the code from the lm.summary() function but with all the excess baggage removed (note, all the error handling has been removed as well).
p <- allModels$rank
rdf <- allModels$df.residual
Qr <- allModels$qr
n <- NROW(Qr$qr)
p1 <- 1L:p
r <- allModels$residuals
f <- allModels$fitted.values
w <- allModels$weights
mss <- if (attr(allModels$terms, "intercept"))
sum((f - mean(f))^2) else sum(f^2)
rss <- sum(r^2)
resvar <- rss/rdf
R <- chol2inv(Qr$qr[p1, p1, drop = FALSE])
se <- sqrt(diag(R) * resvar)
est <- allModels$coefficients[Qr$pivot[p1]]
tval <- est/se
tval is now a vector of the t statistics as also give by
summary(allModels)$coefficients[,3]
If you have problems on the large model you might want to rewrite the code so that it keeps fewer objects by compounding multiple lines/assignments into fewer lines.
Hacky solution I know. But it will be about as fast as possible. I suppose it would be neater to put all the lines of code into a function as well.
Related
I have two data matrices both having the same dimensions. I want to extract the same series of columns vectors. Then take both series as vectors, then calculate different errors for example mean absolute error (mae), mean percentage error (mape) and root means square error
(rmse). My data matrix is quite large dimensional so I try to explain with an example and calculate these errors manually as:
mat1<- matrix(6:75,ncol=10,byrow=T)
mat2<- matrix(30:99,ncol=10,byrow=T)
mat1_seri1 <- as.vector(mat1[,c(1+(0:4)*2)])
mat1_seri2<- as.vector(mat1[,c(2+(0:4)*2)])
mat2_seri1 <- as.vector(mat1[,c(1+(0:4)*2)])
mat2_seri2<- as.vector(mat1[,c(2+(0:4)*2)])
mae1<-mean(abs(mat1_seri1-mat2_seri1))
mae2<-mean(abs(mat1_seri2-mat2_seri2))
For mape
mape1<- mean(abs(mat1_seri1-mat2_seri1)/mat1_seri1)*100
mape2<- mean(abs(mat1_seri2-mat2_seri2)/mat1_seri2)*100
similarly, I calculate rmse from their formula, as I have large data matrices so manually it is quite time-consuming. Is it's possible to do this using looping which gives an output of the errors (mae,mape,rmse) term for each series separately.
I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here is a function that could automate the process, maybe there is also a better way:
fn <- function(m1, m2) {
stopifnot(dim(m1) == dim(m2))
mat1_seri1 <- as.vector(m1[, (1:ncol(m1))[(1:ncol(m1))%%2 != 0]])
mat1_seri2 <- as.vector(m1[, (1:ncol(m1))[!(1:ncol(m1))%%2]])
mat2_seri1 <- as.vector(m2[, (1:ncol(m2))[(1:ncol(m2))%%2 != 0]])
mat2_seri2 <- as.vector(m2[, (1:ncol(m2))[!(1:ncol(m2))%%2]])
mae1 <- mean(abs(mat1_seri1-mat2_seri1))
mae2 <- mean(abs(mat1_seri2-mat2_seri2))
mape1 <- mean(abs(mat1_seri1-mat2_seri1)/mat1_seri1)*100
mape2 <- mean(abs(mat1_seri2-mat2_seri2)/mat1_seri2)*100
setNames(as.data.frame(matrix(c(mae1, mae2, mape1, mape2), ncol = 4)),
c("mae1", "mae2", "mape1", "mape2"))
}
fn(mat1, mat2)
mae1 mae2 mape1 mape2
1 24 24 92.62581 86.89572
I am trying to reproduce the SPSS output for significance a linear trend among means when equal variances are not assumed.
I have gratefully used code from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gonzo/coursenotes/file3.pdf to create a function for calculating separate variances, which based on my searching I understand as the “equal variances not assumed” output in SPSS.
My problem/goal:
I am only assessing polynomial orthogonal trends (mostly linear). I want to adapt the code creating the function so that the contrast argument can take pre-made contrast matrices rather than manually specifying the coefficients each time (room for typos!).
… I have tried those exact commands but receive Error in contrast %*% means : non-conformable arguments . I have played around with the code but I can’t get it to work.
Code for creating the function from the notes:
sepvarcontrast <- function(dv, group, contrast) {
means <- c(by(dv, group, mean))
vars <- c(by(dv, group, var))
ns <- c(by(dv, group, length))
ihat <- contrast %*% means
t.denominator <- sqrt(contrast^2 %*% (vars/ns))
t.welch <- ihat/ t.denominator
num.contrast <- ifelse(is.null(dim(contrast)),1,dim(contrast)[1])
df.welch <- rep(0, num.contrast)
if (is.null(dim(contrast))) contrast <- t(as.matrix(contrast))
for (i in 1:num.contrast) {
num <- (contrast[i,]^2 %*% (vars))^2
den <- sum((contrast[i,]^2 * vars)^2 / (ns-1))
df.welch[i] <- num/den
}
p.welch <- 2*(1- pt(abs(t.welch), df.welch))
result <- list(ihat = ihat, se.ihat = t.denominator, t.welch = t.welch,
df.welch = df.welch, p.welch = p.welch)
return(result)
}
I would like to be able to use the function like this:
# Create a polynomial contrast matrix for 5 groups, then save
contr.mat5 <- contr.poly(5)
# Calculate separate variance
sepvarcontrast(dv, group, contrast = contr.mat5)
I have tried those exact commands to see if they would work but receive Error in contrast %*% means : non-conformable arguments.
All suggestions are appreciated! I am still learning how to create a reprex...
I want to generate 2 continuous random variables Q1, Q2 (quantitative traits, each are normal) and 2 binary random variables Z1, Z2 (binary traits) with given pairwise correlations between all possible pairs of them.
Say
(Q1,Q2):0.23
(Q1,Z1):0.55
(Q1,Z2):0.45
(Q2,Z1):0.4
(Q2,Z2):0.5
(Z1,Z2):0.47
Please help me generate such data in R.
This is crude but might get you started in the right direction.
library(copula)
options(digits=3)
probs <- c(0.5,0.5)
corrs <- c(0.23,0.55,0.45,0.4,0.5,0.47) ## lower triangle
Simulate correlated values (first two quantitative, last two transformed to binary)
sim <- function(n,probs,corrs) {
tmp <- normalCopula( corrs, dim=4 , "un")
getSigma(tmp) ## test
x <- rCopula(1000, tmp)
x2 <- x
x2[,3:4] <- qbinom(x[,3:4],size=1,prob=rep(probs,each=nrow(x)))
x2
}
Test SSQ distance between observed and target correlations:
objfun <- function(corrs,targetcorrs,probs,n=1000) {
cc <- try(cor(sim(n,probs,corrs)),silent=TRUE)
if (is(cc,"try-error")) return(NA)
sum((cc[lower.tri(cc)]-targetcorrs)^2)
}
See how bad things are when input corrs=target:
cc0 <- cor(sim(1000,probs=probs,corrs=corrs))
cc0[lower.tri(cc0)]
corrs
objfun(corrs,corrs,probs=probs) ## 0.112
Now try to optimize.
opt1 <- optim(fn=objfun,
par=corrs,
targetcorrs=corrs,probs=c(0.5,0.5))
opt1$value ## 0.0208
Stops after 501 iterations with "max iterations exceeded". This will never work really well because we're trying to use a deterministic hill-climbing algorithm on a stochastic objective function ...
cc1 <- cor(sim(1000,probs=c(0.5,0.5),corrs=opt1$par))
cc1[lower.tri(cc1)]
corrs
Maybe try simulated annealing?
opt2 <- optim(fn=objfun,
par=corrs,
targetcorrs=corrs,probs=c(0.5,0.5),
method="SANN")
It doesn't seem to do much better than the previous value. Two possible problems (left as an exercise for the reader are) (1) we have specified a set of correlations that are not feasible with the marginal distributions we have chosen, or (2) the error in the objective function surface is getting in the way -- to do better we would have to average over more replicates (i.e. increase n).
I am trying to determine whether there is a significant difference between two Gamm distributions. One distribution has (shape, scale)=(shapeRef,scaleRef) while the other has (shape, scale)=(shapeTarget,scaleTarget). I try to do analysis of variance with the following code
n=10000
x=rgamma(n, shape=shapeRef, scale=scaleRef)
y=rgamma(n, shape=shapeTarget, scale=scaleTarget)
glmm1 <- gam(y~x,family=Gamma(link=log))
anova(glmm1)
The resulting p values keep changing and can be anywhere from <0.1 to >0.9.
Am I going about this the wrong way?
Edit: I use the following code instead
f <- gl(2, n)
x=rgamma(n, shape=shapeRef, scale=scaleRef)
y=rgamma(n, shape=shapeTarget, scale=scaleTarget)
xy <- c(x, y)
anova(glm(xy ~ f, family = Gamma(link = log)),test="F")
But, every time I run it I get a different p-value.
You will indeed get a different p-value every time you run this, if you pick different realizations every time. Just like your data values are random variables, which you'd expect to vary each time you ran an experiment, so is the p-value. If the null hypothesis is true (which was the case in your initial attempts), then the p-values will be uniformly distributed between 0 and 1.
Function to generate simulated data:
simfun <- function(n=100,shapeRef=2,shapeTarget=2,
scaleRef=1,scaleTarget=2) {
f <- gl(2, n)
x=rgamma(n, shape=shapeRef, scale=scaleRef)
y=rgamma(n, shape=shapeTarget, scale=scaleTarget)
xy <- c(x, y)
data.frame(xy,f)
}
Function to run anova() and extract the p-value:
sumfun <- function(d) {
aa <- anova(glm(xy ~ f, family = Gamma(link = log),data=d),test="F")
aa["f","Pr(>F)"]
}
Try it out, 500 times:
set.seed(101)
r <- replicate(500,sumfun(simfun()))
The p-values are always very small (the difference in scale parameters is easily distinguishable), but they do vary:
par(las=1,bty="l") ## cosmetic
hist(log10(r),col="gray",breaks=50)
I'm using R.
My dataset has about 40 different Variables/Vektors and each has about 80 entries. I'm trying to find significant correlations, that means I want to pick one variable and let R calculate all the correlations of that variable to the other 39 variables.
I tried to do this by using a linear modell with one explaining variable that means: Y=a*X+b.
Then the lm() command gives me an estimator for a and p-value of that estimator for a. I would then go on and use one of the other variables I have for X and try again until I find a p-value thats really small.
I'm sure this is a common problem, is there some sort of package or function that can try all these possibilities (Brute force),show them and then maybe even sorts them by p-value?
You can use the function rcorr from the package Hmisc.
Using the same demo data from Richie:
m <- 40
n <- 80
the_data <- as.data.frame(replicate(m, runif(n), simplify = FALSE))
colnames(the_data) <- c("y", paste0("x", seq_len(m - 1)))
Then:
library(Hmisc)
correlations <- rcorr(as.matrix(the_data))
To access the p-values:
correlations$P
To visualize you can use the package corrgram
library(corrgram)
corrgram(the_data)
Which will produce:
In order to print a list of the significant correlations (p < 0.05), you can use the following.
Using the same demo data from #Richie:
m <- 40
n <- 80
the_data <- as.data.frame(replicate(m, runif(n), simplify = FALSE))
colnames(the_data) <- c("y", paste0("x", seq_len(m - 1)))
Install Hmisc
install.packages("Hmisc")
Import library and find the correlations (#Carlos)
library(Hmisc)
correlations <- rcorr(as.matrix(the_data))
Loop over the values printing the significant correlations
for (i in 1:m){
for (j in 1:m){
if ( !is.na(correlations$P[i,j])){
if ( correlations$P[i,j] < 0.05 ) {
print(paste(rownames(correlations$P)[i], "-" , colnames(correlations$P)[j], ": ", correlations$P[i,j]))
}
}
}
}
Warning
You should not use this for drawing any serious conclusion; only useful for some exploratory analysis and formulate hypothesis. If you run enough tests, you increase the probability of finding some significant p-values by random chance: https://www.xkcd.com/882/. There are statistical methods that are more suitable for this and that do do some adjustments to compensate for running multiple tests, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonferroni_correction.
Here's some sample data for reproducibility.
m <- 40
n <- 80
the_data <- as.data.frame(replicate(m, runif(n), simplify = FALSE))
colnames(the_data) <- c("y", paste0("x", seq_len(m - 1)))
You can calculate the correlation between two columns using cor. This code loops over all columns except the first one (which contains our response), and calculates the correlation between that column and the first column.
correlations <- vapply(
the_data[, -1],
function(x)
{
cor(the_data[, 1], x)
},
numeric(1)
)
You can then find the column with the largest magnitude of correlation with y using:
correlations[which.max(abs(correlations))]
So knowing which variables are correlated which which other variables can be interesting, but please don't draw any big conclusions from this knowledge. You need to have a proper think about what you are trying to understand, and which techniques you need to use. The folks over at Cross Validated can help.
If you are trying to predict y using only one variable than you have to take the one that is mainly correlated with y.
To do this just use the command which.max(abs(cor(x,y))). If you want to use more than one variable in your model then you have to consider something like the lasso estimator
One option is to run a correlation matrix:
cor_result=cor(data)
write.csv(cor_result, file="cor_result.csv")
This correlates all the variables in the file against each other and outputs a matrix.