# Linear Algebra behind the lm() function in R

This post comes out of the blue, nearly 2 years since my last one. I realize I’ve been lazy, so here’s hoping I move from an inertia of rest to that of motion, implying, regular and (hopefully) relevant posts. I also chanced upon some wisdom while scrolling through my Twitter feed:

This blog post in particular was meant to be a reminder to myself and other R users that the much used lm() function in R (for fitting linear models) can be replaced with some handy matrix operations to obtain regression coefficients, their standard errors and other goodness-of-fit stats printed out when summary() is called on an lm object.

Linear regression can be formulated mathematically as follows:
$\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{X} \mathbf{\beta} + \mathbf{\epsilon}$,
$\mathbf{\epsilon} \sim N(0, \sigma^2 \mathbf{I})$

$\mathbf{y}$ is the $\mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{1}$ outcome variable and $\mathbf{X}$ is the $\mathbf{n}\times \mathbf{(\mathbf{k}+1)}$ data matrix of independent predictor variables (including a vector of ones corresponding to the intercept). The ordinary least squares (OLS) estimate for the vector of coefficients $\mathbf{\beta}$ is:

$\hat{\mathbf{\beta}} = (\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})^{-1} \mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{y}$

The covariance matrix can be obtained with some handy matrix operations:
$\textrm{Var}(\hat{\mathbf{\beta}}) = (\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})^{-1} \mathbf{X}^{\prime} \;\sigma^2 \mathbf{I} \; \mathbf{X} (\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})^{-1} = \sigma^2 (\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})^{-1}$
given that $\textrm{Var}(AX) = A \times \textrm{Var}X \times A^{\prime}; \textrm{Var}(\mathbf{y}) = \mathbf{\sigma^2}$

The standard errors of the coefficients are basically $\textrm{Diag}(\sqrt{\textrm{Var}(\hat{\mathbf{\beta}})}) = \textrm{Diag}(\sqrt{\sigma^2 (\mathbf{X}^{\prime} \mathbf{X})^{-1}})$ and with these, one can compute the t-statistics and their corresponding p-values.

Lastly, the F-statistic and its corresponding p-value can be calculated after computing the two residual sum of squares (RSS) statistics:

• $\mathbf{RSS}$ – for the full model with all predictors
• $\mathbf{RSS_0}$ – for the partial model ($\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{\mu} + \mathbf{\nu}; \mathbf{\mu} = \mathop{\mathbb{E}}[\mathbf{y}]; \mathbf{\nu} \sim N(0, \sigma_0^2 \mathbf{I})$) with the outcome observed mean as estimated outcome

$\mathbf{F} = \frac{(\mathbf{RSS_0}-\mathbf{RSS})/\mathbf{k}}{\mathbf{RSS}/(\mathbf{n}-\mathbf{k}-1)}$

I wrote some R code to construct the output from summarizing lm objects, using all the math spewed thus far. The data used for this exercise is available in R, and comprises of standardized fertility measures and socio-economic indicators for each of 47 French-speaking provinces of Switzerland from 1888. Try it out and see for yourself the linear algebra behind linear regression.

Hope this was useful and worth your time!

# Linear / Logistic Regression in R: Dealing With Unknown Factor Levels in Test Data

Let’s say you have data containing a categorical variable with 50 levels. When you divide the data into train and test sets, chances are you don’t have all 50 levels featuring in your training set.

This often happens when you divide the data set into train and test sets according to the distribution of the outcome variable. In doing so, chances are that our explanatory categorical variable might not be distributed exactly the same way in train and test sets – so much so that certain levels of this categorical variable are missing from the training set. The more levels there are to a categorical variable, it gets difficult for that variable to be similarly represented upon splitting the data.

Take for instance this example data set (train.csv + test.csv) which contains a categorical variable var_b that takes 349 unique levels. Our train data has 334 of these levels – on which the model is built – and hence 15 levels are excluded from our trained model. If you try making predictions on the test set with this model in R, it throws an error:
factor var_b has new levels 16060, 17300, 17980, 19060, 21420, 21820, 25220, 29340, 30300, 33260, 34100, 38340, 39660, 44300, 45460 
If you’ve used R to model generalized linear class of models such as linear, logit or probit models, then chances are you’ve come across this problem – especially when you’re validating your trained model on test data.

The workaround to this problem is in the form of a function, remove_missing_levels  that I found here written by pat-s. You need magrittr library installed and it can only work on lm, glm and glmmPQL objects.

Once you’ve sourced the above function in R, you can seamlessly proceed with using your trained model to make predictions on the test set. The code below demonstrates this for the data set shared above. You can find these codes in one of my github repos and try it out yourself.

# Implementing Undirected Graphs in Python

There are 2 popular ways of representing an undirected graph.

Each list describes the set of neighbors of a vertex in the graph.

The elements of the matrix indicate whether pairs of vertices are adjacent or not in the graph.

Here’s an implementation of the above in Python:

Output:

# Deterministic Selection Algorithm Python Code

Through this post, I’m sharing Python code implementing the median of medians algorithm, an algorithm that resembles quickselect, differing only in the way in which the pivot is chosen, i.e, deterministically, instead of at random.

Its best case complexity is O(n) and worst case complexity O(nlog2n)

I don’t have a formal education in CS, and came across this algorithm while going through Tim Roughgarden’s Coursera MOOC on the design and analysis of algorithms. Check out my implementation in Python.

I get the following output:

51
100 loops, best of 3: 2.38 ms per loop

Note that on the same input, quickselect is faster, giving us:

1000 loops, best of 3: 254 µs per loop

# scikit-learn Linear Regression Example

Here’s a quick example case for implementing one of the simplest of learning algorithms in any machine learning toolbox – Linear Regression. You can download the IPython / Jupyter notebook here so as to play around with the code and try things out yourself.

I’m doing a series of posts on scikit-learn. Its documentation is vast, so unless you’re willing to search for a needle in a haystack, you’re better off NOT jumping into the documentation right away. Instead, knowing chunks of code that do the job might help.

# Detecting Structural Breaks in China’s FX Regime

##### Edit: This post is in its infancy. Work is still ongoing as far as deriving insight from the data is concerned. More content and economic insight is expected to be added to this post as and when progress is made in that direction.

This is an attempt to detect structural breaks in China’s FX regime using Frenkel Wei regression methodology (this was later improved by Perron and Bai). I came up with the motivation to check for these structural breaks while attending a guest lecture on FX regimes by Dr. Ajay Shah delivered at IGIDR. This is work that I and two other classmates are working on as a term paper project under the supervision of Dr. Rajeswari Sengupta.

The code below can be replicated and run as is, to get same results.

As can be seen in the figure below, the structural breaks correspond to the vertical bars. We are still working on understanding the motivations of China’s central bank in varying the degree of the managed float exchange rate.

EDIT (May 16, 2016):

The code above uses data provided by the package itself. If you wished to replicate this analysis on data after 2010, you will have to use your own data. We used Quandl, which lets you get 10 premium datasets for free. An API key (for only 10 calls on premium datasets) is provided if you register there. Foreign exchange rate data (2000 onward till date) apparently, is premium data. You can find these here.

Here are the (partial) results and code to work the same methodology on the data from 2010 to 2016:

We got breaks in 2010 and in 2015 (when China’s stock markets crashed). We would have hoped for more breaks (we can still get them), but that would depend on the parameters chosen for our regression.

# Data Manipulation in R with dplyr – Part 3

This happens to be my 50th blog post – and my blog is 8 months old.

🙂

This post is the third and last post in in a series of posts (Part 1Part 2) on data manipulation with dlpyr. Note that the objects in the code may have been defined in earlier posts and the code in this post is in continuation with code from the earlier posts.

Although datasets can be manipulated in sophisticated ways by linking the 5 verbs of dplyr in conjunction, linking verbs together can be a bit verbose.

Creating multiple objects, especially when working on a large dataset can slow you down in your analysis. Chaining functions directly together into one line of code is difficult to read. This is sometimes called the Dagwood sandwich problem: you have too much filling (too many long arguments) between your slices of bread (parentheses). Functions and arguments get further and further apart.

The %>% operator allows you to extract the first argument of a function from the arguments list and put it in front of it, thus solving the Dagwood sandwich problem.

group_by()

group_by() defines groups within a data set. Its influence becomes clear when calling summarise() on a grouped dataset. Summarizing statistics are calculated for the different groups separately.

Combine group_by with mutate

group_by() can also be combined with mutate(). When you mutate grouped data, mutate() will calculate the new variables independently for each group. This is particularly useful when mutate() uses the rank() function, that calculates within group rankings. rank() takes a group of values and calculates the rank of each value within the group, e.g.

rank(c(21, 22, 24, 23))

has output

[1] 1 2 4 3

As with arrange(), rank() ranks values from the largest to the smallest and this behaviour can be reversed with the desc() function.