/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 28 Given that \(R^{2}=.723\) for th... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Given that \(R^{2}=.723\) for the model containing predictors \(x_{1}, x_{4}, x_{5}\), and \(x_{8}\) and \(R^{2}=.689\) for the model with predictors \(x_{1}, x_{3}, x_{5}\), and \(x_{6}\), what can you say about \(R^{2}\) for the model containing predictors a. \(x_{1}, x_{3}, x_{4}, x_{5}, x_{6}\), and \(x_{8}\) ? Explain. b. \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{4}\) ? Explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified
For model (a), it cannot be less than 0.723. For model (b), it is less than 0.723.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding R-squared

R-squared ( R^2 ) represents the proportion of variance explained by the predictors in a regression model. A higher R^2 indicates a model that better explains the variability of the response variable.
02

Evaluating the Combined Model

The first part asks about a model with predictors (x_1, x_3, x_4, x_5, x_6, x_8) . This model combines all predictors from the given models. Since adding predictors generally cannot decrease R^2 , the R^2 for this model will be at least equal to the highest R^2 already seen, which is 0.723.
03

Evaluating the Reduced Model

For the model containing only (x_1, x_4) , it is formed using a subset of the first model's predictors, which has an R^2 of 0.723. Removing predictors usually decreases R^2 , hence the R^2 for this reduced model will be less than 0.723.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

R-squared
R-squared, often symbolized as \(R^2\), is a statistical measure used to assess how well the independent variables (or predictors) explain the variability in the dependent variable in a regression model. Essentially, it provides insight into the goodness of fit of the model. An \(R^2\) value ranges from 0 to 1:

  • A value of 0 means that the predictors do not explain any of the variance in the dependent variable.
  • A value of 1 means that the predictors explain all the variance in the dependent variable perfectly.
Higher \(R^2\) values indicate a model that fits the data well by explaining a larger portion of the variance. However, a very high \(R^2\) does not always imply that the model is the best one. Complex models with many predictors may have high \(R^2\) but might overfit the data. Overfitting means the model captures the noise along with the actual data, compromising its performance on new data.
Predictors
Predictors are independent variables in a regression model that help explain the variation in the dependent variable. When building a model, selecting the right predictors is crucial for achieving predictive accuracy and interpretability. In the context of multiple linear regression, we often deal with several predictors to understand complex relationships.

The choice of predictors affects several model aspects:
  • Increasing the number of predictors typically increases \(R^2\) as each predictor adds more explanatory power to the model. This happens because adding more predictors generally accounts for more variance.
  • However, it's important to ensure that the data does not suffer from multicollinearity, where predictors are highly correlated with each other. Multicollinearity can make the model's coefficient estimates unstable.
Thus, selecting predictors involves balancing between including enough variables to accurately predict the outcomes and avoiding too many variables, which can lead to overfitting and complexity issues.
Variance Explained
Variance Explained refers to the fraction of the variability in the dependent variable that is captured by the regression model. It is directly correlated to the \(R^2\) value, as \(R^2\) expresses this fraction. A 70% variance explained indicates that the model accounts for 70% of the variability of the outcome, and the remaining 30% is due to factors not included in the model or random error.

Consider the models from the exercise:
  • With \(R^2 = 0.723\), 72.3% of the variance is explained, leaving 27.7% unexplained.
  • By comparing different models, you can see how adding or removing variables impacts variance explained.
Monitoring variance explained helps in understanding the model's performance. If adding a variable does not significantly increase the variance explained, it may be unnecessary or redundant.
Regression Model Evaluation
Regression Model Evaluation involves checking how well a model predicts the outcomes of interest and assessing its reliability. When evaluating a regression model, several factors should be considered beyond just the \(R^2\):

  • Adjusted \(R^2\): Unlike \(R^2\), Adjusted \(R^2\) accounts for the number of predictors in the model. It adjusts for the addition of unnecessary predictors that do not improve the model.
  • Model Assumptions: The standard linear regression model assumptions should be met for valid conclusions: linearity, independence, homoscedasticity (constant variance of error terms), and normality of residuals.
  • Forecasting Accuracy: Besides goodness of fit statistics like \(R^2\), using metrics such as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) will provide insight into prediction errors.
  • Cross-validation: This helps verify that the model is generalizable to unseen data.
Regression model evaluation ensures that the model is dependable and useful for decision-making and prediction.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Feature recognition from surface models of complicated parts is becoming increasingly important in the development of efficient computer-aided design (CAD) systems. The article 'A Computationally Efficient Approach to Feature Abstraction in DesignManufacturing Integration" (J. of Engr. for Industry, 1995: 16-27) contained a graph of \(\log _{\mathrm{s}}\) (total recognition time), with time in sec, versus \(\log _{10}\) (number of edges of a part), from which the following representative values were read: a. Does a scatterplot of \(\log\) (time) versus \(\log (\) edges) suggest an approximate linear relationship between these two variables? b. What probabilistic model for relating \(y=\) recognition time to \(x=\) number of edges is implied by the simple linear regression relationship between the transformed variables? c. Summary quantities calculated from the data are $$ \begin{aligned} &n=16 \quad \Sigma x_{i}^{\prime}=42.4 \quad \Sigma y_{i}^{\prime}=21.69 \\ &\Sigma\left(x_{i}^{\prime}\right)^{2}=126.34 \quad \Sigma\left(y_{i}^{\prime}\right)^{2}=38.5305 \\ &\Sigma x_{i}^{\prime} y_{i}^{\prime}=68.640 \end{aligned} $$ Calculate estimates of the parameters for the model in part (b), and then obtain a point prediction of time when the number of edges is 300 .

Continuous recording of heart rate can be used to obtain information about the level of exercise intensity or physical strain during sports participation, work, or other daily activities. The article "The Relationship Between Heart Rate and Oxygen Uptake During Non-Steady State Exercise" (Ergonomics, 2000: 1578-1592) reported on a study to investigate using heart rate response \((x\), as a percentage of the maximum rate) to predict oxygen uptake ( \(y\), as a percentage of maximum uptake) during exercise. The accompanying data was read from a graph in the article. $$ \begin{array}{l|llllllll} \mathrm{HR} & 43.5 & 44.0 & 44.0 & 44.5 & 44.0 & 45.0 & 48.0 & 49.0 \\ \hline \mathrm{VO}_{2} & 22.0 & 21.0 & 22.0 & 21.5 & 25.5 & 24.5 & 30.0 & 28.0 \\\ \mathrm{HR} & 49.5 & 51.0 & 54.5 & 57.5 & 57.7 & 61.0 & 63.0 & 72.0 \\ \hline \mathrm{VO}_{2} & 32.0 & 29.0 & 38.5 & 30.5 & 57.0 & 40.0 & 58.0 & 72.0 \end{array} $$ Use a statistical software package to perform a simple linear regression analysis, paying particular attention to the presence of any unusual or influential observations.

The article "Applying Regression Analysis to Improve Dyeing Process Quality: A Case Study" (Intl. J. of Advanced Manuf. Tech., 2010: 357-368) examined the practice of adjust pH of dye liquor at a large manufacturer of automotive carpets. The investigation was based on a data set consisting of 114 observations included in the article). The dependent variable is \(y=\mathrm{pH}\) before addition of dyes, and the predictors are \(x_{1}=\) carpet density \(\left(\mathrm{oz} / \mathrm{yd}^{2}\right), x_{2}=\) carpet weight \((\mathrm{lb}), x_{3}=\) dye weight \((\mathrm{g}), x_{4}=\) dye weight as a percentage of carpet weight \((\%)\), and \(x_{5}=\mathrm{pH}\) after addition of dyes. a. Here is output from Minitab's Best Subsets Regression option. Which model(s) would you recommend, and why? Does this model appear to specify a useful relationship between the response variable and the predictors? [Note: The pattern in a normal probability plot of the standardized residuals is very linear. The plots of standardized residuals against both \(x_{3}\) and \(x_{5}\) show no discernible pattern. There is one observation whose \(x_{3}\) value is more than twice as large as for any other observation, but with \(n=114\), this observation has very little influence on the fit.] c. Should either one of the two predictors be eliminated from the model provided that the other predictor is retained? Explain your reasoning. d. Calculate and interpret \(95 \%\) CIs for the \(\beta\) coefficients of the two model predictors. e. The estimated standard deviation of \(\hat{Y}\) when \(x_{3}=\) 1000 and \(x_{5}=6\) is \(.0336\). Obtain and interpret a \(95 \%\) CI for true average \(\mathrm{pH}\) before addition of dyes under these circumstances.

Does exposure to air pollution result in decreased life expectancy? This question was examined in the article "Does Air Pollution Shorten Lives?" (Statistics and Public Policy, Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley, 1977). Data on $$ \begin{aligned} y &=\text { total mortality rate }(\text { deaths per } 10,000) \\ x_{1} &=\text { mean suspended particle reading }\left(\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{m}^{3}\right) \\ x_{2} &=\text { smallest sulfate reading }\left(\left[\mu \mathrm{g} / \mathrm{m}^{3}\right] \times 10\right) \\ x_{3} &=\text { population density }\left(\text { people } / \mathrm{mi}^{2}\right) \\ x_{4} &=\text { (percent nonwhite) } \times 10 \\ x_{5} &=\text { (percent over } 65) \times 10 \end{aligned} $$ for the year 1960 was recorded for \(n=117\) randomly selected standard metropolitan statistical areas. The estimated regression equation was $$ \begin{aligned} y=& 19.607+.041 x_{1}+.071 x_{2} \\ &+.001 x_{3}+.041 x_{4}+.687 x_{5} \end{aligned} $$ a. For this model, \(R^{2}=.827\). Using a \(.05\) significance level, perform a model utility test. b. The estimated standard deviation of \(\hat{\beta}_{1}\) was 016 . Calculate and interpret a \(90 \%\) CI for \(\beta_{1}\). c. Given that the estimated standard deviation of \(\hat{\beta}_{4}\) is \(.007\), determine whether percent nonwhite is an important variable in the model. Use a .01 significance level. d. In 1960 , the values of \(x_{1}, x_{2}, x_{3}, x_{4}\), and \(x_{5}\) for Pittsburgh were \(166,60,788,68\), and 95 , respectively. Use the given regression equation to predict Pittsburgh's mortality rate. How does your prediction compare with the actual 1960 value of 103 deaths per 10,000 ?

An aeronautical engineering student carried out an experiment to study how \(y=\) lift/drag ratio related to the variables \(x_{1}=\) position of a certain forward lifting surface relative to the main wing and \(x_{2}=\) tail placement relative to the main wing, obtaining the following data (Statistics for Engineering Problem Solving, p. 133\():\)a. Fitting the first-order model gives \(\mathrm{SSE}=5.18\), whereas including \(x_{3}=x_{1} x_{2}\) as a predictor results in \(\mathrm{SSE}=\) 3.07. Calculate and interpret the coefficient of multiple determination for each model. b. Carry out a test of model utility using \(\alpha=.05\) for each of the models described in part (a). Does either result surprise you?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.