1 / 36

Linear Modelling II

Linear Modelling II. Richard Mott Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics. Recap. So far, we have learnt about Correlation Linear Regression One-Way Analysis of Variance Non-parametric alternatives In this lecture we will cover Relationship between Least Squares and Max Likelihood

foster
Télécharger la présentation

Linear Modelling II

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Linear Modelling II Richard Mott Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics

  2. Recap • So far, we have learnt about • Correlation • Linear Regression • One-Way Analysis of Variance • Non-parametric alternatives • In this lecture we will cover • Relationship between Least Squares and Max Likelihood • Fitting complex linear models • Testing the fits of models • Comparing Models • Checking Goodness of Fit • Prediction

  3. The Likelihood • Likelihood = “probability of the data given the model” • Basis of parametric statistical inference • Different hypotheses can often be expressed in terms of different values of the parameters q • Hypothesis testing equivalent to comparing the likelihoods for different q

  4. The Likelihood Ratio Test • General Framework for constructing hypothesis tests: S = Likelihood( data | H1) / Likelihood( data | H0) Reject H0 if S > s(H0, H1) Threshold s is chosen such that there is a probability a of making a false rejection under H0. • is the size of the test (or false positive rate or Type I error) e.g. a=0.05 • is the power of the test, the probability of correctly rejecting H0 when H1 is true e.g. b=0.8 1- b is the type II error, the false negative rate Generally, for fixed sample size n, if we fix a then we can’t fix b If we fix a and b then we must let n vary. The Neyman Pearson Lemma states that the likelihood ratio test is the most powerful of all tests of a given size Type III error: "correctly rejecting the null hypothesis for the wrong reason".

  5. Maximum Likelihood Principle • Often a hypothesis does not completely specify all the parameters in the model • eg comparing mean of a sample to 0 • don’t specify the variance in the model • H0 : data are distributed as N(0,s2) • H1 : data are distributed as N(m,s2) • assume Gaussian (Normal) errors • Have to estimate the free parameters s, mto perform test • Maximum Likelihood: • first choose estimates for any free parameters to maximise the likelihood • Use the maximised likelihood in the LR test • ML estimates of parameters have good properties in large samples

  6. Asymptotic Distribution of log-likelihood ratio statistics • H0 is a submodel of H1 • parameters q • are fixed qo under H0 • unknown q1 under H1, estimated by max likelihood • max likelihood estimates under H1 are • ie at

  7. Taylor expansion of log-likelihood ratio a quadratic form with rank k (= difference in number of free parameters) Asymptotic distribution of 2 * log-likelihood ratio is

  8. Example: A Simple Contingency Table • Objects are classified into K classes • Probability of class i is pi • Ho: Probability of each class is the same = 1/K • H1: Probability of classes are different • Data: Ni observed in class i

  9. Contingency TableLikelihood-ratio test Likelihood log-Likelihood log-Likelihood under Ho maximised log-Likelihood under H1 2*log-Likelihood ratio Compare to chi-square test, both distributed as

  10. Least Squares and Maximum Likelihood Density function of Normal distribution Likelihood for linear regression model Collect terms, converting to a sum Take logarithms

  11. Maximising the log Likelihood with respect to a, b is identical to minimising the residual sum of squares (RSS) Least Squares = Maximum Likelihood for Normal Data MLE’s for a, b are the same as LS estimates. The MLE for s2 = RSS/n (slightly biased estimate) Residual Mean Square = RSS/(n-1)

  12. The general linear model • A linear model with multiple explanatory variables • e.g. in the Biochemistry data set, HDL (y) may depend on Tot.Cholesterol (x) and GENDER (z) yi = a + b1xi + b2zi + ei • In general: yi = b0 + b1x1i + b2 x2i + ….. + bpxpi + eib0 is the intercept (grand mean) E(yi)= b0 + b1x1i + b2 x2i + ….. + bpxpilinear predictor ei ~ N(0,s2) errors are iid Normal

  13. Example: One-Way ANOVA In original formulation, data are grouped in a table Rewrite the data as a single vector of numbers y1 …. yn and define p indicator variables, one for each group k=1..p: In new formulation, data are a vector but there are p+1 variables

  14. The Design Matrix Linear Models are best understood using matrix notation. The Design Matrix, X captures all the information about the explanatory variables n rows (subjects) p+1 columns (variables) Then, using matrix multiplication, the linear model is written as

  15. General Least Squares Solution The least squares estimators in the general linear model minimise There is a “solution”: if the square matrix is invertible then is the transpose of If the matrix is not invertible then the model is over-parameterised, ie some of the explanatory variables can be constructed from combinations of the other variables. Then it is necessary to reduce the design matrix by removing columns until is invertible. This process is done automatically in R, but can result in some parameters being thrown out. A factor with q levels will only require q-1 parameters.

  16. Equivalent Models: re-parameterisation One area of difficulty is that two apparently different models can produce identical fits to the data, even though the parameter estimates may look completely different Mathematically, this can happen if the design matrix for one model can be derived from the other by forming appropriate linear combinations of the columns This is called re-parameterisation: One example is the reduction in columns sometimes necessary to make invertible Another example: fitting a factor with just two levels (eg sex) is equivalent to coding sex numerically by the number of X chromosomes (ie 1 or 2). The parameter estimates will appear different but the ANOVA and fitted values will be identical. Another example: fitting a factor with q levels usually requires q-1 parameters because one level can be constructed from the others plus the overall mean. However, one can omit the mean, in which case the number of parameters for the factor increases to q

  17. Model Formulae in R If X is an R data frame with columns named “y”, “A”, “B” “C” etc, then we can form model formulae y ~ A y ~ A + B y ~ A + B + C y ~ B + C etc If a column is numeric then adding a term for the column will mean an additional parameter must be estimated If the column is a factor with q levels then the column is implicitly expanded as q-1 indicator variables, and q-1 additional parameters must be estimated Warning: if an factor column is accidentally interpreted as numeric then the model fit will almost certainly be wrong !

  18. Model Formulae in R By default, the overall mean is included in an R model formula. It can be included explicitly: y ~ 1 (just fit a model with the overall mean, the null model) y ~ 1 + A (fit the overall mean plus A) or excluded: y ~ A -1 In the latter case: if A is numeric, this corresponds to a linear regression with intercept=0, ie the line of fit is forced to pass through the origin (0,0) if A is a factor, this model is a reparameterisation of y ~ A. the fit is the same but the parameter estimates look different.

  19. Additive Models Consider a model with two factors A (Sex: male vs female) and B (Treatment: treated vs untreated): y ~ A + B This means that the effects of sex and treatment act additively and independently of each other, for example being female might add +1 unit to the average response compared to males, regardless of treatment, being in the treatment group might add +2 units, regardless of sex. Overall, two parameters are needed for the model

  20. Interactions Now consider a model with two factors A (Sex: male vs female) and B (Treatment: treated vs untreated): y ~ A * B This means that the effects of sex and treatment interact with each other, for example being female with treatment adds +2 units to the average response being female with no treatment adds 1 unit being male with treatment adds +4 units being male with no treatment adds 0 units Now three parameters are required to model the data

  21. Comparing Nested Linear Models the additive model y ~ A + B f.additive <- lm(y ~ A + B ) is a submodel of (nested in) the interaction model y ~ A * B f.interaction <- lm( y ~ A * B ) This means that the additive model is a special case of the interaction model, corresponding to setting certain parameters to be 0 R will let us compare nested models, to see if there is evidence for an interaction: a <- anova(f.additive, f.interaction)

  22. Comparing Nested Models:The Partial F-test • A model M1 is nested within M2 (M1 is a submodel of M2) if • M1 corresponds to forcing some of the parameters in M2 to 0 • [ More generally, the n x p1 design matrix X1 for M1 satisfies • X1 = A X2 • where X2 is the n x p2 design matrix for M2 and A is a p2 x p1 matrix ] • The partial F test is used to compare the models: • Fit the models M1, M2with fitting SS FSS1 <= FSS2 • If M1 is true then the additional p2-p1 parameters in the model contribute • nothing of substance, and the extra fitting SS = FSS2 – FSS1 is “stolen” from • RSS1 and should be distributed as a residual sum of squares with p2-p1 df • Therefore Fpartial = [(FSS2 – FSS1)/(p2-p1)]/[ RSS2/(n-p2) ] should be distributed • like an F(p2-p1, n-p2 ) random variable. • The partial F test is an equivalent of the likelihood-ratio test; it is exact if the • errors are Normally distributed.

  23. Example (simulated data) > df <- read.table(“int.txt”, h=TRUE) > f.add.add <- lm( y.add ~ sex + treat ) # simulated to only have additive effects > anova(f.add.add) Analysis of Variance Table Response: y.add Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) sex 1 27.043 27.043 9.5686 0.002586 ** treat 1 312.262 312.262 110.4870 < 2.2e-16 *** Residuals 97 274.144 2.826 > f.add.int <- lm( y.add ~ sex * treat ) # fitting an interaction > anova(f.add.int) Analysis of Variance Table Response: y.add Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) sex 1 27.043 27.043 9.5124 0.002666 ** treat 1 312.262 312.262 109.8378 < 2.2e-16 *** sex:treat 1 1.223 1.223 0.4300 0.513538 # interaction not significant Residuals 96 272.921 2.843 > anova(f.add.add, f.add.int) # comparison of models Analysis of Variance Table Model 1: y.add ~ sex + treat Model 2: y.add ~ sex * treat Res.Df RSS Df Sum of Sq F Pr(>F) 1 97 274.144 2 96 272.921 1 1.223 0.43 0.5135 > >

  24. Example (simulated data) > df <- read.table(“int.txt”, h=TRUE) > f.int.int <- lm( y.int ~ sex * treat ) # simulated to have an interaction > anova(f.int.int) Analysis of Variance Table Response: y.int Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) sex 1 169.34 169.34 46.783 7.376e-10 *** # main effect for sex treat 1 54.74 54.74 15.121 0.0001857 *** # main effect for treatment sex:treat 1 252.93 252.93 69.876 4.909e-13 *** # interaction for sex and treatment Residuals 96 347.49 3.62 f.add.int <- lm( y.add ~ sex * treat ) # simulated to only have additive effects > anova(f.add.int) Analysis of Variance Table Response: y.add Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F) sex 1 27.043 27.043 9.5124 0.002666 ** treat 1 312.262 312.262 109.8378 < 2.2e-16 *** sex:treat 1 1.223 1.223 0.4300 0.513538 Residuals 96 272.921 2.843 > anova(f.int.add,f.int.int) # comparison of additive and interaction Analysis of Variance Table Model 1: y.int ~ sex + treat Model 2: y.int ~ sex * treat Res.Df RSS Df Sum of Sq F Pr(>F) 1 97 600.42 2 96 347.49 1 252.93 69.876 4.909e-13 ***

  25. Digression: Experimental Design • The two factor model is a simple example of an experimental design, • the objective is to distribute the individuals across different factor combinations so that we can estimate effects efficiently at minimum cost • In this example, equal numbers were assigned to each factor combination, a balanced orthogonal design • Balance = equal numbers of replicates in each factor combination • Orthogonal = estimates of a factor’s main effects are unaffected by adding other factors or interactions (in the example, the columns representing sex and treatment are uncorrelated) • Experimental design is a vast subject – • Optimal design depends on what is wanted • Have to distinguish between factors we can control and random factors.

  26. Mixing Factors and Numeric Variables in R Consider the R models y ~ A + X (1) y ~ A * X (2) where A is a factor (with p levels) and X is numeric. What do they represent? will fit a series of p parallel linear regression lines will fit a series of p linear regression lines, with no constraint on being parallel Model (1) is nested inside (2) so they can be compared with a partial F-test anova(fit1,fit2) tests the hypothesis of parallel lines

  27. Interpreting Model Comparison:multicolinarity • Suppose we fit the models (X1, X2 are numeric) Y ~ X1 (1) Y ~ X2 (2) Y ~ X1 + X2 (3) • Often we find • FSS(Y ~ X1 + X2) < FSS(Y ~ X1) + FSS(Y ~ X2) • The discrepancy is because in general X1, X2 are correlated with each other: only when cor(X1, X2) = 0 (we say they are orthogonal does • FSS(Y ~ X1 + X2) = FSS(Y ~ X1) + FSS(Y ~ X2) • And in extreme case when |cor(X1, X2)| = 1 • FSS(Y ~ X1 + X2) = FSS(Y ~ X1) = FSS(Y ~ X2) • This makes the interpretation of model comparisons difficult: in general there will be a part of the FSS which could be explained by either X1, X2 and it is impossible to determine which is correct. • Multicolinearity becomes a serious problem in models with many terms • Another way of thinking about this problem is that it is good to design an experiment such that the X’s are orthogonal, although this is not possible if the X’s are observed quantities.

  28. Model Diagnostic PlotsObserved vs Residuals In this example, negative residuals are associated with small values of y indicating poor model fit

  29. Comparing Non-nested models • There is no equivalent to the partial F test when comparing non-nested models. • The main issue is how to compensate for the fact that a model with more parameters will tend to fit the data better (in the sense of explaining more variance) than a model with fewer parameters • But a model with many parameters tends to be a poorer predictor of new observations, because of over-fitting • However, several criteria have been proposed for model comparison • AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) where L = the likelihood for the data, p= # parameters For Linear Models, where n is the number of observations and L is the maximized value of the likelihood function for the estimated model. Among models with the same number of observations n, choose the model which minimises the simplified AIC

  30. BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) • The BIC penalizes p more strongly than the AIC - ie it prefers models with fewer paramters • In R: f <- lm( formula, data) aic <- AIC(f) bic <- AIC(f, k = log(nrow(data)))

  31. Building Models Automatically • Example: • We wish to find a set of SNPs that jointly explain variation in a quantitative trait • There will be (usually) far more SNPs s than data points n • There are a vast number 2s of possible models • No model can contain more than n-1 parameters (model saturation) • Forward Selection: • Start with a small model and augment the model step by step so long as the improvement in fit satisfies a criterion (eg AIC or BIC, or partial F test) • At each step, add the variable which maximises the improvement in fit • Backwards Elimination: • Start with a very large model and subtract terms from the model step by step • At each step, delete the variable that minimises the decrease in fit • Forward-Backward • At each step, either add or delete a term depending on which optimises a criterion • in R, stepAIC • Model Averaging • Rather than try to find a single model, integrate over many plausible models • Bootstrapping • Bayesian Model Averaging

  32. Random EffectsMixed Models • So far our models have had fixed effects • each parameter can take any value independently of the others • each parameter estimate uses up a degree of freedom • models with large numbers of parameters have problems • saturation - overfitting • poor predictive properties • numerically unstable and difficult to fit • in some cases we can treat parameters as being sampled from a distribution – random effects • only estimate the parameters needed to specify that distribution • can result in a more robust model

  33. Example of a Mixed Model • Testing genetic association across a large number of of families • yi = trait value of i’th individual • bi = genotype of individual at SNP of interest • fi = family identifier (factor) • y = m + b + f + e • If we treat family effects f as fixed then we must estimate a large number of parameters • Better to think of these effects as having a distribution N(0,t2) for some variance t • genotype parameters b treated as fixed effects

  34. Some Essential R tips

  35. Comparing Models containing Missing Data • R will silently omit rows of data containing missing elements, and adjust the df accordingly • R will only compare models using anova() if the models have been fitted to identical observations. • Sporadic missing values in the explanatory variables can cause problems, because models may have a different numbers of complete cases • Solution is to use the R function complete.cases() to identify those rows with complete data in the most general model, and specify these rows for modelling: cc <- complete.cases(data.frame) f <-lm( formula, data, subset=cc)

  36. Joining two data frames on a common column • Frequently data to be analysed are in several data frames, with a column of unique subject ids used to match the rows. • Unfortunately, often the subjects differ slightly between data frames, eg frame1 might contain phenotype data and frame2 contain genotypes. Usually these two sets don’t agree perfectly because there will be subjects with genotypes but no phenotypes and vice versa • Solution 1: Make a combined data frame containing the intersection of the subjects intersect <- frame1$id[match(frame2$id, frame1$id, nomatch = 0)] combined <- cbind( frame1[match(intersect,frame1$id),cols1], frame2[match(intersect,frame2$id),cols2]) • Solution 2: Make a combined data frame containing the union of the subjects union <- unique(sort(c(as.character(frame1$id),as.character(frame2$id))) combined <- cbind( frame1[match(union,frame1$id),cols1],frame2[match(union,frame2$id),cols2]) • cols1 is a list of the column names to include in frame1, • cols2 is a list of the column names to include in frame2

More Related