/*! 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 2 For the data set below, use a pa... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

For the data set below, use a partial \(F\) -test to determine whether the variables \(x_{1}\) and \(x_{2}\) do not significantly help to predict the response variable, \(y .\) Use the \(\alpha=0.05\) level of significance. $$ \begin{array}{ccccc|ccccc} x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & x_{4} & y & x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & x_{4} & y \\ \hline 24.9 & 66.3 & 13.5 & 3.7 & 59.8 & 41.1 & 83.5 & 9.7 & 21.8 & 84.6 \\ \hline 26.7 & 100.6 & 15.7 & 11.4 & 66.3 & 25.4 & 112.7 & 9.8 & 16.4 & 87.3 \\\ \hline 30.6 & 77.8 & 13.8 & 15.7 & 76.5 & 33.8 & 68.8 & 6.8 & 25.9 & 88.5 \\ \hline 39.6 & 83.4 & 8.8 & 8.8 & 77.1 & 23.5 & 69.5 & 7.5 & 15.5 & 90.7 \\ \hline 33.1 & 69.4 & 10.6 & 18.3 & 81.9 & 39.8 & 63.0 & 6.8 & 30.8 & 93.4 \\ \hline \end{array} $$

Short Answer

Expert verified
1. Fit both models to get SSR.2. Compute partial F.3. Compare with critical value to make a decision.

Step by step solution

01

- Define the Full and Reduced Models

The full model includes all predictor variables: \[ y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_1 + \beta_2 x_2 + \beta_3 x_3 + \beta_4 x_4 + \epsilon \]The reduced model excludes the predictors of interest, here \(x_1\) and \(x_2\): \[ y = \beta_0 + \beta_3 x_3 + \beta_4 x_4 + \epsilon \]
02

- Fit the Full and Reduced Models

Fit both the full and reduced multiple regression models to get the sum of squared residuals (SSR). Let's denote: SSR_full for the full model and SSR_reduced for the reduced model.
03

- Calculate Sum of Squared Residuals (SSR)

Identify SSR_full and SSR_reduced. Using regression analysis tools or software:SSR_full = Sum of squared residuals from the full model.SSR_reduced = Sum of squared residuals from the reduced model.
04

- Compute the Test Statistic (Partial F)

The partial F-test statistic is computed as:\[ F = \frac{(SSR_{reduced} - SSR_{full})/(p-k)}{SSR_{full}/(n-p)} \]where:- \(p\) = number of predictors in the full model + 1 (for the intercept)- \(k\) = number of predictors in the reduced model + 1- \(n\) = number of observations.
05

- Determine Critical Value and Decision Rule

Using significance level \(\alpha = 0.05\) with \((p-k, n-p)\) degrees of freedom:Find the critical value \(F_{\alpha}(p-k, n-p)\) from F-distribution tables.Compare the computed F to the critical value:
06

- Make a Decision

If computed F > critical F, reject the null hypothesis, indicating that \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) significantly improve the prediction of y. Otherwise, fail to reject the null hypothesis.

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.

Full Model
In a statistical regression context, the 'full model' represents the equation that includes all predictor variables under consideration.
For instance, in our given exercise, the full model includes all explanatory variables:\[ y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_1 + \beta_2 x_2 + \beta_3 x_3 + \beta_4 x_4 + \epsilon \]Where:
  • \(y\) is the response variable we're predicting.
  • \(\beta_0\) is the intercept.
  • \(\beta_1\), \(\beta_2\), \(\beta_3\), and \(\beta_4\) are the coefficients for the explanatory variables \(x_1\), \(x_2\), \(x_3\), and \(x_4\) respectively.
  • \(\epsilon\) is the error term.
The full model is useful because it attempts to take into account all possible influences on the variable we are trying to predict. This complete consideration often provides a more accurate model but can also be overcomplicated if some predictors do not significantly contribute to the prediction of \(y\).
Evaluating the necessity of specific predictors often leads us to compare it with a reduced model.
Reduced Model
The reduced model simplifies the full model by excluding some predictor variables that may not significantly influence the response variable.
In this exercise, we exclude \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) from our model, resulting in the reduced model:
\[ y = \beta_0 + \beta_3 x_3 + \beta_4 x_4 + \epsilon \]This step is crucial for a few reasons:
  • It helps us identify which variables actually matter.
  • We reduce the complexity of our model, making it simpler and potentially more generalizable.
When we omit variables, we produce a model that relies only on the significant predictors, potentially offering similar predictive power but with less noise. The essential idea is to determine if the omitted variables \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) meaningfully improve the model's prediction of \(y\). This is evaluated using statistical tools, one of the most effective being the partial F-test.
Sum of Squared Residuals (SSR)
In regression analysis, one significant metric is the 'Sum of Squared Residuals (SSR)', which measures how well our model explains or fits the data.
Residuals are the differences between the observed and predicted values, and SSR is the sum of these differences squared:
\[ SSR = \sum (y_i - \hat{y}_i)^2 \]With \(y_i\) being the observed values and \(\hat{y}_i\) their predicted counterparts from the regression model. A lower SSR indicates a better fit.
In our exercise, we compute SSR for both the full and reduced models to evaluate which model fits better:
  • SSR_full: Sum of squared residuals from the full model.
  • SSR_reduced: Sum of squared residuals from the reduced model.
These values are used in further computations to determine if omitting certain predictors significantly worsens the fit of our model.
Specifically, lower values of SSR in the full model compared to the reduced model suggest that the additional predictors may indeed be valuable.
However, this hypothesis must be statistically tested using the partial F-test. The aim is to quantify if the difference in SSR values is significant enough to justify the inclusion of additional variables in our model.

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

CEO Performance (Refer to Problem 31 in Section 4.1 ) The following data represent the total compensation for 12 randomly selected chief executive officers (CEOs) and the company's stock performance in \(2013 .\) $$ \begin{array}{lcc} \text { Company } & \begin{array}{l} \text { Compensation } \\ \text { (millions of dollars) } \end{array} & \begin{array}{l} \text { Stock } \\ \text { Return (\%) } \end{array} \\ \hline \text { Navistar International } & 14.53 & 75.43 \\ \hline \text { Aviv REIT } & 4.09 & 64.01 \\ \hline \text { Groupon } & 7.11 & 142.07 \\ \hline \text { Inland Real Estate } & 1.05 & 32.72 \\ \hline \text { Equity Lifestyles Properties } & 1.97 & 10.64 \\ \hline \text { Tootsie Roll Industries } & 3.76 & 30.66 \\ \hline \text { Catamaran } & 12.06 & 0.77 \\ \hline \text { Packaging Corp of America } & 7.62 & 69.39 \\ \hline \text { Brunswick } & 8.47 & 58.69 \\ \hline \text { LKQ } & 4.04 & 55.93 \\ \hline \text { Abbott Laboratories } & 20.87 & 24.28 \\ \hline \text { TreeHouse Foods } & 6.63 & 32.21 \end{array} $$ (a) Treating compensation as the explanatory variable, \(x\), determine the estimates of \(\beta_{0}\) and \(\beta_{1}\). (b) Assuming the residuals are normally distributed, test whether a linear relation exists between compensation and stock return at the \(\alpha=0.05\) level of significance. (c) Assuming the residuals are normally distributed, construct a \(95 \%\) confidence interval for the slope of the true leastsquares regression line. (d) Based on your results to parts (b) and (c), would you recommend using the least-squares regression line to predict the stock return of a company based on the CEO's compensation? Why? What would be a good estimate of the stock return based on the data in the table?

Tires The following data represent the cost of tires (in dollars) along with a variety of potential explanatory variables. Slalom time is the amount of time it took for a 3-series BMW to get through a slalom track, lap time is the amount of time it took the same car to complete a \(1 / 3\) -mile lap, and stopping distance is the distance it took the BMW to stop on wet pavement traveling 60 miles per hour. Find the best regression model using each of the three techniques presented in the section. What do you notice? $$ \begin{array}{lcccccc} \text { TIRE } & \begin{array}{c} \text { Cost } \\ \text { (dollars) } \end{array} & \text { MPG } & \begin{array}{c} \text { Slalom Time } \\ \text { (seconds) } \end{array} & \begin{array}{c} \text { Lap Time } \\ \text { (seconds) } \end{array} & \begin{array}{c} \text { Stopping } \\ \text { Distance } \\ \text { (feet) } \end{array} & \begin{array}{c} \text { Cornering } \\ \text { g-Force } \end{array} \\ \hline \text { BFGoodrich g-Force Sport COMP-2 } & 114 & 30.5 & 5.13 & 30.24 & 80.0 & 0.90 \\ \hline \text { Bridgestone Potenza RE760 Sport } & 126 & 30.2 & 5.08 & 30.14 & 79.4 & 0.91 \\ \hline \text { Firestone Firehawk Wide Oval Indy } 500 & 111 & 30.4 & 5.16 & 30.58 & 83.3 & 0.88 \\ \hline \text { Yokohama S.drive } & 119 & 31.0 & 5.20 & 30.61 & 82.2 & 0.90 \\\ \hline \text { Bridgestone Turanza Serenity Plus } & 154 & 32.2 & 5.10 & 31.13 & 90.4 & 0.84 \\ \hline \text { Continental PureContact } & 134 & 32.7 & 5.15 & 31.18 & 91.2 & 0.85 \\ \hline \text { Michelin Primacy MXV4 } & 135 & 32.3 & 5.15 & 31.18 & 90.2 & 0.85 \\ \hline \text { Yokohama AVID Ascend } & 134 & 32.3 & 5.17 & 31.11 & 91.4 & 0.86 \\ \hline \end{array} $$

Another Mileage Model A researcher is interested in developing a model that describes the gas mileage, measured in miles per gallon (mpg), of automobiles. Based on input from an engineer, she decides that the explanatory variables might be engine size (liters), curb weight (pounds), and horsepower. From a random sample of 13 automobiles, she obtains the following data: $$ \begin{array}{cccc} \text { Engine Size } & \text { Curb Weight } & \text { Horsepower } & \text { Miles per Gallon } \\ \hline 2.4 & 3289 & 177 & 24 \\ \hline 2.4 & 3263 & 158 & 25 \\ \hline 2.5 & 3230 & 170 & 24 \\ \hline 3.5 & 3580 & 272 & 22 \\ \hline 2.8 & 3175 & 255 & 18 \\ \hline 3.5 & 3643 & 263 & 22 \\ \hline 3.5 & 3497 & 306 & 20 \\ \hline 3.0 & 3340 & 230 & 21 \\ \hline 3.6 & 3861 & 263 & 19 \\ \hline 2.4 & 3287 & 173 & 24 \\ \hline 3.3 & 3629 & 234 & 21 \\ \hline 2.5 & 3270 & 170 & 22 \\ \hline 3.5 & 3292 & 270 & 22 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ (a) Find the least-squares regression equation \(\hat{y}=b_{0}+b_{1} x_{1}+b_{2} x_{2}+b_{3} x_{3},\) where \(x_{1}\) is engine size \(, x_{2}\) is curb weight, \(x_{3}\) is horsepower, and \(y\) is the response variable, miles per gallon. (b) Use a partial \(F\) -test to determine whether engine size and curb weight do not significantly help to predict the response variable, miles per gallon. (c) Use forward selection, backward elimination, or stepwise regression to identify the best model in predicting asking price. (d) Draw residual plots, a boxplot of residuals, and a normal probability plot of residuals to assess the adequacy of the model found in part (c). (e) Interpret the regression coefficients for the least-squares regression equation found in part (c). (f) Construct \(95 \%\) confidence and prediction intervals for the gas mileage of an automobile that weighs 3100 pounds, has a 2.5-liter engine, and 200 horsepower. Interpret the results.

Concrete As concrete cures, it gains strength. The following data represent the 7 -day and 28 -day strength (in pounds per square inch) of a certain type of concrete: $$ \begin{array}{cc|cc} \begin{array}{l} \text { 7-Day } \\ \text { Strength, } x \end{array} & \begin{array}{l} \text { 28-Day } \\ \text { Strength, } y \end{array} & \begin{array}{l} \text { 7-Day } \\ \text { Strength, } x \end{array} & \begin{array}{l} \text { 28-Day } \\ \text { Strength, } \boldsymbol{y} \end{array} \\ \hline 2300 & 4070 & 2480 & 4120 \\ \hline 3390 & 5220 & 3380 & 5020 \\ \hline 2430 & 4640 & 2660 & 4890 \\ \hline 2890 & 4620 & 2620 & 4190 \\ \hline 3330 & 4850 & 3340 & 4630 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ (a) Treating the 7 -day strength as the explanatory variable, \(x\), determine the estimates of \(\beta_{0}\) and \(\beta_{1}\). (b) Compute the standard error of the estimate. (c) Determine \(s_{b_{1}}\). (d) Assuming the residuals are normally distributed, test whether a linear relation exists between 7 -day strength and 28 -day strength at the \(\alpha=0.05\) level of significance. (e) Assuming the residuals are normally distributed, construct a \(95 \%\) confidence interval for the slope of the true leastsquares regression line. (f) What is the estimated mean 28 -day strength of this concrete if the 7 -day strength is 3000 psi?

Life Cycle Hypothesis In the \(1950 \mathrm{~s}\), Franco Modigliani developed the Life Cycle Hypothesis. One tenet of this hypothesis is that income varies with age. The following data represent the annual income and age of a random sample of 15 adult Americans. $$ \begin{array}{cc|cc} \text { Age, } x & \text { Income, } y & \text { Age, } x & \text { Income, } y \\ \hline 25 & 25,490 & 47 & 41,398 \\ \hline 27 & 26,910 & 52 & 36,474 \\ \hline 32 & 32,141 & 54 & 38,934 \\ \hline 37 & 35,893 & 57 & 35,775 \\ \hline 42 & 36,451 & 62 & 30,629 \\ \hline 42 & 38,093 & 67 & 22,708 \\ \hline 47 & 36,266 & 72 & 20,506 \end{array} $$ (a) Draw a scatter diagram of the data. What type of relation appears to exist between \(x\) and \(y ?\) (b) Find the quadratic regression equation \(\hat{y}=b_{0}+b_{1} x+b_{2} x^{2}\). (c) Draw a residual plot against the fitted values, \(x,\) and \(x^{2}\). Also, draw a boxplot of the residuals. Are there any problems with the model? (d) Interpret the coefficient of determination. (e) Does the \(F\) -test indicate that we should reject \(H_{0}: \beta_{1}=\beta_{2}=0 ?\) Is either coefficient not significantly different from zero? (f) Construct and interpret \(95 \%\) confidence and prediction intervals incomes for an age of 45 years.

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.