If I have some (x,y) data, I can easily draw straight-line through it, e.g.
f=glm(y~x)
plot(x,y)
lines(x,f$fitted.values)
But for curvy data I want a curvy line. It seems loess() can be used:
f=loess(y~x)
plot(x,y)
lines(x,f$fitted)
This question has evolved as I've typed and researched it. I started off with wanting to a simple function to fit curvy data (where I know nothing about the data), and wanting to understand how to use nls() or optim() to do that. That was what everyone seemed to be suggesting in similar questions I found. But now I stumbled upon loess() I'm happy. So, now my question is why would someone choose to use nls or optim instead of loess (or smooth.spline)? Using the toolbox analogy, is nls a screwdriver and loess is a power-screwdriver (meaning I'd almost always choose the latter as it does the same thing but with less of my effort)? Or is nls a flat-head screwdriver and loess a cross-head screwdriver (meaning loess is a better fit for some problems, but for others it simply won't do the job)?
For reference, here is the play data I was using that loess gives satisfactory results for:
x=1:40
y=(sin(x/5)*3)+runif(x)
And:
x=1:40
y=exp(jitter(x,factor=30)^0.5)
Sadly, it does less well on this:
x=1:400
y=(sin(x/20)*3)+runif(x)
Can nls(), or any other function or library, cope with both this and the previous exp example, without being given a hint (i.e. without being told it is a sine wave)?
UPDATE: Some useful pages on the same theme on stackoverflow:
Goodness of fit functions in R
How to fit a smooth curve to my data in R?
smooth.spline "out of the box" gives good results on my 1st and 3rd examples, but terrible (it just joins the dots) on the 2nd example. However f=smooth.spline(x,y,spar=0.5) is good on all three.
UPDATE #2: gam() (from mgcv package) is great so far: it gives a similar result to loess() when that was better, and a similar result to smooth.spline() when that was better. And all without hints or extra parameters. The docs were so far over my head I felt like I was squinting at a plane flying overhead; but a bit of trial and error found:
#f=gam(y~x) #Works just like glm(). I.e. pointless
f=gam(y~s(x)) #This is what you want
plot(x,y)
lines(x,f$fitted)
Nonlinear-least squares is a means of fitting a model that is non-linear in the parameters. By fitting a model, I mean there is some a priori specified form for the relationship between the response and the covariates, with some unknown parameters that are to be estimated. As the model is non-linear in these parameters NLS is a means to estimate values for those coefficients by minimising a least-squares criterion in an iterative fashion.
LOESS was developed as a means of smoothing scatterplots. It has a very less well defined concept of a "model" that is fitted (IIRC there is no "model"). LOESS works by trying to identify pattern in the relationship between response and covariates without the user having to specify what form that relationship is. LOESS works out the relationship from the data themselves.
These are two fundamentally different ideas. If you know the data should follow a particular model then you should fit that model using NLS. You could always compare the two fits (NLS vs LOESS) to see if there is systematic variation from the presumed model etc - but that would show up in the NLS residuals.
Instead of LOESS, you might consider Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) fitted via gam() in recommended package mgcv. These models can be viewed as a penalised regression problem but allow for the fitted smooth functions to be estimated from the data like they are in LOESS. GAM extends GLM to allow smooth, arbitrary functions of covariates.
loess() is non-parametric, meaning you don't get a set of coefficients you can use later - it's not a model, just a fit line. nls() will give you coefficients you could use to build an equation and predict values with a different but similar data set - you can create a model with nls().
Related
I want to learn how to do nonlinear regression in R. I managed to learn the basics of the nls function, but how we know it's crucial in nonlinear regression to use good initial parameters. I tried to figure out how selfStart and getInitial functions works but failed. The documentation is very scarce and not very usefull. I wanted to learn these functions via a simple simulation data. I simulated data from logistic model:
n<-100 #Number of observations
d<-10000 #our parameters
b<--2
e<-50
set.seed(n)
X<-rnorm(n, -e/b, 2) #Thanks to it we'll have many observations near the point where logistic function grows the faster
Y<-d/(1+exp(b*X+e))+rnorm(n, 0, 200) #I simulate data
Now I wanted to do regression with a function f(x)=d/(1+exp(b*x+e)) but I don't know how to use selfStart or getInitial. Could you help me? But please, don't tell me about SSlogis. I'm aware it's a functon destined to find initial parameters in logistic regression, but It seems it only works in regression with one explanatory variable and I'd like to learn how to do logistic regression with more than one explanatory variables and even how to do general nonlinear regression with a function that I defined mysefl.
I will be very gratefull for your help.
I don't know why the calculus of good initial parameters fails in R. The aim of my answer is to provide a method to find good enough initial parameters.
Note that a non-iterative method exists which doesn't requires initial parameters. The principle is explained in this paper, pp.37-46 : https://fr.scribd.com/doc/14674814/Regressions-et-equations-integrales
A simplified version is shown below.
If the results are not sufficient, they can be used as initial parameters in an usual non-linear regression software such as in R.
A numerical example is shown below. Usually the number of points is much higher. Here it is deliberately low in order to make easier the checking when one edit the code and check it.
Thank you for seeing this post.
Various regression models are being applied to the curve estimating (actual measured ventilation rate).
Comparison was made using the GLM and GAM models including polynomial regression. I use R.
Are there any other types of regression models that can simulate that curve well?
like...bayesian? (In fact, I didn't even understand if it could be applied here)
Sincerely.
loads of non linear methods exist, and many would give similar results, but this is a statistics question. it would fit better on cross validated. also, you have to tell: do you want to do interpolation, even extrapolation? what is your analysis for?
bayesian methods are used when you have knowledge of the phenomenon prior to data, or in some cases when you want to apply regularization or graphical models to data generation processes, I think you should better leave out bayesian statistics here.
edit:
to be short: if you want to obtain a readable formulation of the curve, and you don't have any specific mathematical model in mind, go for a polynomial fit. Other popular choices, which are better for only plotting the curve, instead of reporting it in a mathematical expression, are smoothing splines and LOESS. for further details, maybe ask a new question on stats.stackexchange.com, after studing better the alternatives.
I am fitting a standard multiple regression with OLS method. I have 5 predictors (2 continuous and 3 categorical) plus 2 two-way interaction terms. I did regression diagnostics using residuals vs. fitted plot. Heteroscedasticity is quite evident, which is also confirmed by bptest().
I don't know what to do next. First, my dependent variable is reasonably symmetric (I don't think I need to try transformations of my DV). My continuous predictors are also not highly skewed. I want to use weights in lm(); however, how do I know what weights to use?
Is there a way to automatically generate weights for performing weighted least squares? or Are you other ways to go about it?
One obvious way to deal with heteroscedasticity is the estimation of heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors. Most often they are referred to as robust or white standard errors.
You can obtain robust standard errors in R in several ways. The following page describes one possible and simple way to obtain robust standard errors in R:
https://economictheoryblog.com/2016/08/08/robust-standard-errors-in-r
However, sometimes there are more subtle and often more precise ways to deal with heteroscedasticity. For instance, you might encounter grouped data and find yourself in a situation where standard errors are heterogeneous in your dataset, but homogenous within groups (clusters). In this case you might want to apply clustered standard errors. See the following link to calculate clustered standard errors in R:
https://economictheoryblog.com/2016/12/13/clustered-standard-errors-in-r
What is your sample size? I would suggest that you make your standard errors robust to heteroskedasticity, but that you do not worry about heteroskedasticity otherwise. The reason is that with or without heteroskedasticity, your parameter estimates are unbiased (i.e. they are fine as they are). The only thing that is affected (in linear models!) is the variance-covariance matrix, i.e. the standard errors of your parameter estimates will be affected. Unless you only care about prediction, adjusting the standard errors to be robust to heteroskedasticity should be enough.
See e.g. here how to do this in R.
Btw, for your solution with weights (which is not what I would recommend), you may want to look into ?gls from the nlme package.
I want to compare the curve fits of three models by r-squared values. I ran models using the nls and drc packages. It appears, though, that neither of those packages calculate r-squared values; they give "residual std error" and "residual sum of squares" though.
Can these two be used to compare model fits?
This is really a statistics question, rather than a coding question: consider posting on stats.stackexchange.com; you're likely to get a better answer.
RSQ is not really meaningful for non-linear regression. This is why summary.nls(...) does not provide it. See this post for an explanation.
There is a common, and understandable, tendency to hope for a single statistic that allows one to assess which of a set of models better fits a dataset. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. Here are some things to consider.
Generally, the best model is the one that has a mechanistic underpinning. Do your models reflect some physical process, or are you just trying a bunch of mathematical equations and hoping for the best? The former approach almost always leads to better models.
You should consider how the models will be used. Will you be interpolating (e.g. estimating y|x within the range of your dataset), or will you be extrapolating (estimating y|x outside the range of your data)? Some models yield a fit that provides relatively accurate estimates slightly outside the dataset range, and others completely fall apart.
Sometimes the appropriate modeling technique is suggested by the type of data you have. For example, if you have data that counts something, then y is likely to be poisson distributed and a generalized linear model (glm) in the poisson family is indicated. If your data is binary (e.g. only two possible outcomes, success or failure), then a binomial glm is indicated (so-called logistic regression).
The key underlying assumption of least squares techniques is that the error in y is normally distributed with mean 0 and constant variance. We can test this after doing the fit by looking at a plot of standardized residuals vs. y, and by looking at a Normal Q-Q plot of the residuals. If the residuals plot shows scatter increasing or decreasing with y then the model in not a good one. If the Normal Q-Q plot is not close to a straight line, then the residuals are not normally distributed and probably a different model is indicated.
Sometimes certain data points have high leverage with a given model, meaning that the fit is unduly influenced by those points. If this is a problem you will see it in a leverage plot. This indicates a weak model.
For a given model, it may be the case that not all of the parameters are significantly different from 0 (e.g., p-value of the coefficient > 0.05). If this is the case, you need to explore the model without those parameters. With nls, this often implies a completely different model.
Assuming that your model passes the tests above, it is reasonable to look at the F-statistic for the fit. This is essentially the ratio of SSR/SSE corrected for the dof in the regression (R) and the residuals (E). A model with more parameters will generally have smaller residual SS, but that does not make it a better model. The F-statistic accounts for this in that models with more parameters will have larger regression dof and smaller residual dof, making the F-statistic smaller.
Finally, having considered the items above, you can consider the residual standard error. Generally, all other things being equal, smaller residual standard error is better. Trouble is, all other things are never equal. This is why I would recommend looking at RSE last.
What functions do you use in R to fit a curve to your data and test how well that curve fits? What results are considered good?
Just the first part of that question can fill entire books. Just some quick choices:
lm() for standard linear models
glm() for generalised linear models (eg for logistic regression)
rlm() from package MASS for robust linear models
lmrob() from package robustbase for robust linear models
loess() for non-linear / non-parametric models
Then there are domain-specific models as e.g. time series, micro-econometrics, mixed-effects and much more. Several of the Task Views as e.g. Econometrics discuss this in more detail. As for goodness of fit, that is also something one can spend easily an entire book discussing.
The workhorses of canonical curve fitting in R are lm(), glm() and nls(). To me, goodness-of-fit is a subproblem in the larger problem of model selection. Infact, using goodness-of-fit incorrectly (e.g., via stepwise regression) can give rise to seriously misspecified model (see Harrell's book on "Regression Modeling Strategies"). Rather than discussing the issue from scratch, I recommend Harrell's book for lm and glm. Venables and Ripley's bible is terse, but still worth a reading. "Extending the Linear Model with R" by Faraway is comprehensive and readable. nls is not covered in these sources, but "Nonlinear Regression with R" by Ritz & Streibig fills the gap and is very hands-on.
The nls() function (http://sekhon.berkeley.edu/stats/html/nls.html) is pretty standard for nonlinear least-squares curve fitting. Chi squared (the sum of the squared residuals) is the metric that is optimized in that case, but it is not normalized so you can't readily use it to determine how good the fit is. The main thing you should ensure is that your residuals are normally distributed. Unfortunately I'm not sure of an automated way to do that.
The Quick R site has a reasonable good summary of basic functions used for fitting models and testing the fits, along with sample R code:
http://www.statmethods.net/stats/regression.html
The main thing you should ensure is
that your residuals are normally
distributed. Unfortunately I'm not
sure of an automated way to do that.
qqnorm() could probably be modified to find the correlation between the sample quantiles and the theoretical quantiles. Essentially, this would just be a numerical interpretation of the normal quantile plot. Perhaps providing several values of the correlation coefficient for different ranges of quantiles could be useful. For example, if the correlation coefficient is close to 1 for the middle 97% of the data and much lower at the tails, this tells us the distribution of residuals is approximately normal, with some funniness going on in the tails.
Best to keep simple, and see if linear methods work "well enuff". You can judge your goodness of fit GENERALLY by looking at the R squared AND F statistic, together, never separate. Adding variables to your model that have no bearing on your dependant variable can increase R2, so you must also consider F statistic.
You should also compare your model to other nested, or more simpler, models. Do this using log liklihood ratio test, so long as dependant variables are the same.
Jarque–Bera test is good for testing the normality of the residual distribution.