[R] interpretation of F-statistics in GAMs
Simon Wood
s.wood at bath.ac.uk
Fri Jun 22 17:30:44 CEST 2007
On Friday 15 June 2007 08:06, robert.ptacnik at niva.no wrote:
> dear listers,
> I use gam (from mgcv) for evaluation of shape and strength of relationships
> between a response variable and several predictors.
> How can I interpret the 'F' values viven in the GAM summary? Is it
> appropriate to treat them in a similar manner as the T-statistics in a
> linear model, i.e. larger values mean that this variable has a stronger
> impact than a variable with smaller F?
- I'd be a bit cautious about this (even for T-statistics and linear models
it's not quite clear to me what `impact' means if judged this way). These gam
F statistics are only meant to provide a rough and ready means of judging
approximate significance of terms, and I'm unsure about interpreting a
comparison of such F ratios: for example the F statistics can be based on
differerent numbers of degrees of freedom, depending on the term concerned...
> When I run my analysis for two different response varables (but identical
> predictors), is there a way to compare the F values among tests (like to
> standardize them by teh sum of F within each test?) I append two summaries
> below.
- Again, I don't really known how this would work. I'd be more inclined to
compare the plotted terms and associated CIs (and maybe the p-values),
especially if you are using GAMs in a quite exploratory way (e.g. if the
assumption of an additive structure is really a convenience, rather than
being something that is suggested by the underlying science).
best,
Simon
>
>
> ### example 1 ###
>
> Family: gaussian
> Link function: identity
>
> Formula:
> dep[sel, i] ~ s(date, k = 3) + s(depth, k = kn) + s(temp, k = kn) +
> s(light, k = kn) + s(PO4, k = kn) + s(DIN, k = kn) + s(prop.agpla,
> k = kn)
>
> Parametric coefficients:
> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
> (Intercept) 5.1048 0.0384 132.9 <2e-16 ***
> ---
> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
>
> Approximate significance of smooth terms:
> edf Est.rank F p-value
> s(date) 1.669 2 12.161 1.07e-05 ***
> s(depth) 1.671 2 36.125 4.85e-14 ***
> s(temp) 1.927 2 6.686 0.00156 **
> s(light) 1.886 2 12.604 7.20e-06 ***
> s(PO4) 1.676 2 3.237 0.04143 *
> s(DIN) 1.000 1 38.428 3.41e-09 ***
> s(prop.agpla) 1.405 2 15.987 3.79e-07 ***
> ---
> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
>
> R-sq.(adj) = 0.687 Deviance explained = 70.5%
> GCV score = 0.31995 Scale est. = 0.30076 n = 204
>
> ### example 2 ###
> Family: gaussian
> Link function: identity
>
> Formula:
> dep[sel, i] ~ s(date, k = 3) + s(depth, k = kn) + s(temp, k = kn) +
> s(light, k = kn) + s(PO4, k = kn) + s(DIN, k = kn) + s(prop.agpla,
> k = kn)
>
> Parametric coefficients:
> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
> (Intercept) 7.13588 0.05549 128.6 <2e-16 ***
> ---
> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
>
> Approximate significance of smooth terms:
> edf Est.rank F p-value
> s(date) 1.944 2 15.997 3.67e-07 ***
> s(depth) 1.876 2 25.427 1.52e-10 ***
> s(temp) 1.000 1 2.866 0.0921 .
> s(light) 1.751 2 4.212 0.0162 *
> s(PO4) 1.950 2 10.632 4.14e-05 ***
> s(DIN) 1.805 2 10.745 3.73e-05 ***
> s(prop.agpla) 1.715 2 2.674 0.0715 .
> ---
> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
>
> R-sq.(adj) = 0.479 Deviance explained = 50.9%
> GCV score = 0.6863 Scale est. = 0.64348 n = 209
>
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html and provide commented, minimal,
> self-contained, reproducible code.
--
> Simon Wood, Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY UK
> +44 1225 386603 www.maths.bath.ac.uk/~sw283
More information about the R-help
mailing list