[R] question about the degrees of freedom
David Winsemius
dwinsemius at comcast.net
Mon May 3 19:19:26 CEST 2010
On May 3, 2010, at 11:43 AM, serdal ozusaglam wrote:
> Hi Serdal,
> > There is a lot of confusion here (how much is yours and how much is
> > mine remains to be seen). See specific comments in line.
>
> Also inline comments.
>
> >
> > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:19 AM, serdal ozusaglam
> > <saint-filth at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear R users,
> >>
> >>
> >> I think i have a simple question which i want to explain by an
> >> example;
> >>
> >> i have several 2-digit industry codes that i want to use for
> >> conducting by-industry analysis but i think there is a problem with
> >> the degrees of freedom!
> >>
> >> for example, when i do my analysis without any 2-digit industry
> >> code, i got the following summary (i have 146574 observations in
> >> total):
> >>> abc<-lm(lnQ~lnC+lnM+lnL+lnE+eco+inno, data=ds)
> >>> summary(abc)
> >>
> >> Call:
> >> lm(formula = lnQ ~ lnC + lnM + lnL + lnE + eco + inno, data = ds)
> >>
> >> Residuals:
> >> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
> >> -11.01340 -0.17637 -0.02217 0.14974 7.79005
> >>
> >> Coefficients:
> >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
> >> (Intercept) 0.8870369 0.0050646 175.144 <2e-16 ***
> >> lnC 0.0658922 0.0006549 100.614 <2e-16 ***
> >> lnM 0.8027478 0.0006549 1225.764 <2e-16 ***
> >> lnL 0.0173622 0.0004025 43.138 <2e-16 ***
> >> lnE 0.0657710 0.0006745 97.516 <2e-16 ***
> >> ecoTRUE 0.0101649 0.0045892 2.215 0.0268 *
> >> innoTRUE 0.0945100 0.0030317 31.174 <2e-16 ***
> >> ---
> >> Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05
> ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
> >>
> >> Residual standard error: 0.294 on 146160 degrees of freedom
> >> (407 observations deleted due to missingness)
> >> Multiple R-squared: 0.9705, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9705
> >> F-statistic: 8.027e+05 on 6 and 146160 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
> >>
> >> as we can see from the last row there are 146160 DF (407 deleted)
> >> this is ok!
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Usually it is better to make a small example that demonstrates your
> > issue. I have no idea what these variable are which makes it
> harder to
> > diagnose your problem.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> but when i want to use for example just one of the industry lets
> >> say just the 11th industry
> >> 1st: i create the dummy for this industry such as;
> >>
> >>
> >>> ind1=(ind_2d==11)# so here the R supposed to consider just the
> >>> 11th industry!!
> >
> > This makes no sense to me. What are you trying to do here? What is
> > ind_2d? Are you trying to subset your data.frame? If so, see ?
> subset,
> > or ?"["
>
> Serdal is just making a logical indicator variable.
>
> >
> >>> abc<-lm(lnQ~lnC+lnM+lnL+lnE+eco+inno+ind, data=ds)
> >>> summary(abc)
> >>
> >> Call:
> >> lm(formula = lnQ ~ lnC + lnM + lnL + lnE + eco + inno + ind,
> >> data = ds)
> >>
> >> Residuals:
> >> Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
> >> -11.03392 -0.17647 -0.02301 0.14901 7.74957
> >>
> >> Coefficients:
> >> Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
> >> (Intercept) 0.8980397 0.0050451 178.001 < 2e-16 ***
> >> lnC 0.0672255 0.0006523 103.065 < 2e-16 ***
> >> lnM 0.7990819 0.0006579 1214.596 < 2e-16 ***
> >> lnL 0.0171633 0.0004004 42.870 < 2e-16 ***
> >> lnE 0.0670030 0.0006716 99.770 < 2e-16 ***
> >> ecoTRUE 0.0162249 0.0045672 3.552 0.000382 ***
> >> innoTRUE 0.0966967 0.0030160 32.062 < 2e-16 ***
> >> indTRUE -0.1251466 0.0031509 -39.717 < 2e-16 ***
> >> ---
> >> Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05
> ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
> >>
> >> Residual standard error: 0.2924 on 146159 degrees of freedom
> >> (407 observations deleted due to missingness)
> >> Multiple R-squared: 0.9709, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9709
> >> F-statistic: 6.957e+05 on 7 and 146159 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
> >>
> >> but as we can see it again counted in all the industries! so the DF
> >> is 146159!!!
> >>
> >>
> >> So i just wonder, where do i made mistake, or there is no mistake
> >> at all, and i just misunderstood the DF issue?
> >
> > I think the misunderstanding runs deeper than that. Try creating a
> > minimal example, and clearly stating a) what you are trying to
> > accomplish, b) what you tried, and c) what doesn't work as you
> expect.
>
> I, too, was puzzled by the OP's reaction. Serdal added a single
> logical predictor variable to an existing model that already had two
> such variables and as a result his degrees of freedom in the model
> increased by one and the degrees of freedom in the residuals decreased
> by one. Where is the problem? And why wasn't this question posed even
> earlier at the point of addition of "eco" and "inno" variables? He
> perhaps was expecting that the degrees of freedom in the model would
> increase by the number of records that shared an indTRUE value of
> TRUE, but that is not the way ordinary regression works. Perhaps he
> should do some reading on mixed effects modeling? Or perhaps that is
> what his professor or supervisor is hoping he will learn by assigning
> this task? Or perhaps he needs to learn to use the anova() function?
>
>
>
> ------
>
> i think there is much more problem with my regression than i thought
>
> Dear David, I just want to ask a question to clarify something about
> the dummy variables!
> with a small example, lets say;
> RD is the dummy variable that i created if a firm has reported an
> R&D expenditure such as;
> RD=(researchexp>0)# and lets say i know that there are 100 firms has
> reported such an expenditure within 1000 firms
Is this all within a coding context where you have attached "mydata"?
I avoid the attach function and always assign explicitly from and to
an object:
mydata$RD=(mydata$researchexp>0) # a TRUE/FALSE variable, == 0/1 if
coerced to numeric
> and i basically want to see the effect of this variable on log
> oftotal output (lnQ)
So you are creating a multiplicative model for total output, i.e. the
parameter estimates
will be the product by which a company's output with a particular
variable at level =2.00 would be
different than a company's output that had the same variable at level
= 1.00.
>
> by writin this command:
> abc<-lm(lnQ~RD, data=mydata)
> doesnt the R suppose to consider just these 100 firms that reported
> R&D expenditure?
Not just those firms, but rather those firms versus all the other
firms. (Since the lm
function will interpret the other firms as have a value of 0 rather
than <missing> for
the RD variable.) The exponentiated parameter estimate will be the
ratio of output of
the 100firms' output to the non100-firms' output.
> if so why it doesnt ( i tried just now and it doesnt)
Not sure why it doesn't unless the above explanation captures our
differneces in understanding,
(and I'm not sure how you have decided that "it doesn't"), because you
have not provided
complete code. It seems as though it should.
> if it doesnt suppose to do this, which way i should follow, or where
> do i make mistake?
>
> Looking forward to see your response
> thank you!
> serdal
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> > Best,
> > Ista
> >
> --
> David Winsemius, MD
> West Hartford, CT
>
>
> Windows 7: Size en uygun bilgisayarı bulun. Daha fazla bilgi edinin.
David Winsemius, MD
West Hartford, CT
More information about the R-help
mailing list