Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.stat.math.independent

Topic: Interpretation of coefficients in multiple regressions which model
linear dependence on an IV

Replies: 146   Last Post: Dec 15, 2012 6:44 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Halitsky

Posts: 600
Registered: 2/3/09
I need to correct an apparent miscommunication regar
ding derivation of het H’s and L’s

Posted: Dec 12, 2012 10:10 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In point (2) of your last post of 12/12 at 6:57pm ssm time, you asked:

?2. [...]Are the values whose median you get averages over all
Lengths? [...]

No. I?m sorry my earlier posts on this matter were insufficiently
clear.

To try and clarify, each of the twelve values that underlie the twelve
H?s and L?s in this row of the het table:

a1 a3 b1 b47 c1 c2
C S C S C S C S C S C S
Het
1N Aubqe H H L L H H H H L L L L 0


is the slope of the regression of all values of Aubqe against all
values of Length for each of the twelve fold x subset combinations |
set=1, method=N.

To make this statement perfectly clear:

I.

The twelve slope values underlying the H?s and L?s in the above het
row are:

Slopes of Regressions of
Aubqe on Length (L) for each
Fold x Subset |
Set 1, Method N

Fold x Slope
Subset | # of
Set 1 of Aubqe
Meth N L?s on L

a3_S_1_N 70 -0.000188
c1_C_1_N 101 -0.000026
a3_C_1_N 48 0.000052
c1_S_1_N 101 0.000266
c2_S_1_N 96 0.000421
c2_C_1_N 95 0.000550

b47_C_1_N 99 0.000618
a1_S_1_N 101 0.001069
b47_S_1_N 99 0.001079
b1_S_1_N 31 0.001119
b1_C_1_N 28 0.002015
a1_C_1_N 101 0.002210

where, for example, het is H for (b1,C) and (b1,S) because both b1
values (.001119 and .0022015) are above the median in the above
table.

II.

In the case of the b1,C value of .002015 in the above table of
regression slopes, this value is the slope of the regression of the 28
values of Aubqe on the 28 values of length in the following table,
where for example, 0.029825086 is the value of Aubqe from the
regression of c on (e,u,u*e,u^2) for the 19 observations that were
obtained at length 31 for set 1, method N, fold b1, subset C.

Len Aubqe N
28 -0.021733290 24
29 0.027230210 25
30 -0.010880656 29
31 0.029825086 19
32 -0.011625612 20
33 0.071438615 17
34 0.009855592 22
35 0.113916039 21
36 -0.016038401 23
37 0.047093588 16
38 -0.002015528 17
39 0.098748678 15
41 0.090504651 29
58 -0.040066899 16
60 0.074271940 19
61 0.139588949 19
62 0.242534468 19
63 0.139639919 17
67 -0.130255362 19
72 0.002199866 18
74 -0.107438465 19
76 0.136680341 24
78 -0.090464638 20
79 0.192887241 20
84 0.285430214 17
93 -0.091072353 15
98 0.283460793 16
102 0.352348082 15

III.

Similarly, in the case of the b1,S value of .001119, this value is the
slope of the regression of the 31 values of Aubqe on the 31 values of
length in the following table, where for example, 0.082857411 is the
value of Aubqe from the regression of c on (e,u,u*e,u^2) for the 17
observations that were obtained at length 30 for set 1, method N, fold
b1, subset C.

Len Aubqe N
28 -0.041933273 17
30 0.082857411 17
32 -0.023307810 15
33 0.016436268 19
34 0.064338883 18
35 0.018537301 17
36 0.135477085 26
37 -0.024060074 20
38 0.062289905 18
39 0.070760023 15
40 0.123686153 17
41 0.132276040 26
43 0.214517353 15
47 0.076900232 17
58 0.092083175 15
60 0.034969293 17
61 0.147578406 16
62 0.109426822 20
63 0.129541862 17
64 0.334851532 16
67 -0.075508098 16
72 0.277183445 21
74 0.187384762 21
76 0.239240102 22
78 0.167346457 19
79 -0.028333849 19
81 0.428005607 17
82 0.157404506 16
84 -0.119050706 18
92 0.214102568 15
98 -0.174494187 16

I don?t know if this clarification removes any of your concerns, adds
to them, or makes no difference.

But before continuing the discussion, I wanted to make sure it was
perfectly clear how the het H and L values were derived.



Date Subject Author
11/21/12
Read Interpretation of coefficients in multiple regressions which model
linear dependence on an IV
Halitsky
11/21/12
Read The problematic regression is actually ln(c) on ( ln(u), ln(u^2) ),
not c on (u, u^2)
Halitsky
11/22/12
Read Re: The problematic regression is actually ln(c) on ( ln(u), ln(u^2)
), not c on (u, u^2)
Ray Koopman
11/22/12
Read Off-line Zip File with one Summ File and 12 Detl files for lnc on (lnu,(lnu)^2)
Halitsky
11/23/12
Read Re: Off-line Zip File with one Summ File and 12 Detl files for lnc on (lnu,(lnu)^2)
Ray Koopman
11/23/12
Read Re: Off-line Zip File with one Summ File and 12 Detl files for lnc on (lnu,(lnu)^2)
Halitsky
11/23/12
Read Complete "a1_N_1_S" zipfile with results from all 3 new regressions
Halitsky
11/24/12
Read Re: Complete "a1_N_1_S" zipfile with results from all 3 new regressions
Ray Koopman
11/24/12
Read Re: Complete "a1_N_1_S" zipfile with results from all 3 new regressions
Halitsky
11/24/12
Read You now have N_1_S, N_2_S, and N_3_S files for all folds
Halitsky
11/25/12
Read As per your suggestion in the other thread, scaled e on scaled u, c, L
Halitsky
11/26/12
Read Re: As per your suggestion in the other thread, scaled e on scaled u,
c, L
Ray Koopman
11/26/12
Read Re: Interpretation of coefficients in multiple regressions which
model linear dependence on an IV
Ray Koopman
11/26/12
Read Them there is some neat algebraic mechanics !
Halitsky
11/27/12
Read Re: Them there is some neat algebraic mechanics !
Ray Koopman
11/27/12
Read OK – I think I’m set, at least till we get to c
on (e, u, u*e).
Halitsky
11/27/12
Read Re: OK – I think I’m set, at least till we get t
o c on (e, u, u*e).
Ray Koopman
11/28/12
Read Re: OK – I think I’m set, at least till we get t
o c on (e, u, u*e).
Ray Koopman
11/28/12
Read Thanks for your review of Tables I/II from previous analysis
Halitsky
11/27/12
Read Holy Cow! Look at your "average a1" slope regressed on Len Int
Halitsky
11/27/12
Read Re: Holy Cow! Look at your "average a1" slope regressed on Len Int
Ray Koopman
11/27/12
Read Re: Holy Cow! Look at your "average a1" slope regressed on Len Int
Halitsky
11/27/12
Read Re: Holy Cow! Look at your "average a1" slope regressed on Len Int
Ray Koopman
11/27/12
Read Here's how I did logs ...
Halitsky
11/27/12
Read Please note that $u = u in last post (the $ prefix is from PERL - sorry).
Halitsky
11/27/12
Read Re: Here's how I did logs ...
Ray Koopman
11/28/12
Read Average slopes and means of u' for c on (u',u'^2) WITHOUT logs
Halitsky
11/28/12
Read Results (!!) on average slopes and means for a1_N_1_C (complement
instead of core subset)
Halitsky
11/28/12
Read Re: Results (!!) on average slopes and means for a1_N_1_C (complement
instead of core subset)
Ray Koopman
11/28/12
Read Finally! Pay-off for all that work I did with the "A" matrix returned
by Ivor Welch's module!
Halitsky
11/29/12
Read Average Slope SEs for a1_N_1_S and a1_N_1_C (and some questions
regarding them ...)
Halitsky
11/30/12
Read Re: Average Slope SEs for a1_N_1_S and a1_N_1_C (and some questions
regarding them ...)
Ray Koopman
12/2/12
Read Re: Average Slope SEs for a1_N_1_S and a1_N_1_C (and some questions
regarding them ...)
Ray Koopman
12/2/12
Read Re: Average Slope SEs for a1_N_1_S and a1_N_1_C (and some questions
regarding them ...)
Ray Koopman
12/2/12
Read Glad you brought up “singleton” length intervals
... been thinkin’ on ‘em also ...
Halitsky
12/2/12
Read Re: Glad you brought up “singleton” length inter
vals ... been thinkin’ on ‘em also ...
Ray Koopman
12/2/12
Read It's still 24...124 - don't know why I bothered to say "roughly
25...125" instead of "exactly "24...124"
Halitsky
12/2/12
Read You should probably clear your data deck and start fresh with the two
csv's I just mentioned in the last email
Halitsky
12/2/12
Read Re: Glad you brought up “singleton” length inter
vals ... been thinkin’ on ‘em also ...
Halitsky
12/2/12
Read One last thought: definitions for the third regression (will save a
complete re-run if I incorporate them now) ...
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Number of Bonferroni entries for each singleton length is still 72 (duh!)
Halitsky
11/30/12
Read En passant question: What if a plot of slope CI’s
is lousy, but splits the “m’s” perfectly?
Halitsky
11/30/12
Read Re: En passant question: What if a plot of slope CI
’s is lousy, but splits the “m’s” perfectly?
Ray Koopman
12/1/12
Read I’m glad the perfect m split legitimately suggests
a subset effect; here’s why.
Halitsky
12/1/12
Read Re: I’m glad the perfect m split legitimately sugg
ests a subset effect; here’s why.
Ray Koopman
12/1/12
Read Re: I’m glad the perfect m split legitimately sugg
ests a subset effect; here’s why.
Halitsky
12/1/12
Read Slope and intercept for R'uq in the above example ...
Halitsky
12/1/12
Read Bonferroni tables for p’s from new 2-ways for Auq
per fold and length interval
Halitsky
12/1/12
Read Nope! 24-entry Bonferroni tables for (a1,a3) and (b1,b47) do NOT
improve results for a3 nor b47
Halitsky
12/5/12
Read I'm VERY glad you'll know how to answer this "perms and combs"
question !
Halitsky
12/5/12
Read “L-H Het” Table for Average Slopes Auq, Aubu, Au
bqu
Halitsky
12/5/12
Read In "L-H Het table", L-H Het for N1 Aubu should be 4, NOT 2
Halitsky
12/5/12
Read Holy Moly, were you right about covariances for Rub and Rubq !!!!
Halitsky
12/5/12
Read Re: Holy Moly, were you right about covariances for Rub and Rubq !!!!
Ray Koopman
12/6/12
Read So do we need to "Bonferroni-correct" in this case
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read Re: So do we need to "Bonferroni-correct" in this case
Ray Koopman
12/7/12
Read Response to your last of 12/7 at 12:17am
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read Re: Response to your last of 12/7 at 12:17am
Ray Koopman
12/7/12
Read Thanks for the guidance on how to evaluate the contribution of u^2 in
the second model.
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read Please ignore my first question about "estimated standard errpr" in
my last post !!!! Sorry !
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read The u^2 coefficient in c on (e,u,u*e,u^2) does NOT distinguish among
the four subset x MoSS roll-ups
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read Sorry! Those were the SE's in my last post, not the t's !
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read SE's and p's for four subset x MoSS roll-ups of u*e coefficient in c
= (u,e,u*e)
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read Re: SE's and p's for four subset x MoSS roll-ups of u*e coefficient
in c = (u,e,u*e)
Ray Koopman
12/7/12
Read I'm sorry Ray - excitement (probably unwarranted) has disconnected my
brain from my fingers ...
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read Must we say S,N instead of N,S if we've said "Subset x MoSS" (not
MoSS x Subset) ???
Halitsky
12/7/12
Read Re: Must we say S,N instead of N,S if we've said "Subset x MoSS" (not
MoSS x Subset) ???
Ray Koopman
12/7/12
Read Response to your last
Halitsky
12/8/12
Read Re: Response to your last
Ray Koopman
12/8/12
Read Re: Response to your last
Ray Koopman
12/8/12
Read I think I understand; if so, then here’s what I ex
pect you’ll agree I should do next
Halitsky
12/9/12
Read Thanks so much for the sample picture you sent off-line
Halitsky
12/8/12
Read One other thing - because we're using "c-average", not "c-simple",
"c" is no longer a pure count
Halitsky
12/8/12
Read One other possibly worthwhile observation regarding the term u*e in
the regression c on (e,u,u^e,u^2)
Halitsky
12/8/12
Read Typo's of u^e for u*e in previous post.
Halitsky
12/9/12
Read Could I impose on you for four more ordered p “ref
erence plots”?
Halitsky
12/9/12
Read Have sent off-line a PDF of the four plots themselves graphed all together.
gimpeltf@hotmail.com
12/9/12
Read I'm getting the hang of the plotting now - see PDF SNa1_1_for_Rubq
sent offline
Halitsky
12/9/12
Read Am resending the last PDF sent off-line, since I've now learned how
to highlight the line of interest against the random backdrop.
Halitsky
12/10/12
Read Re: Am resending the last PDF sent off-line, since I've now learned
how to highlight the line of interest against the random backdrop.
Ray Koopman
12/10/12
Read 1) Just u*e and u^2(!!); 2) IOTs vs “proper” tes
ts
Halitsky
12/10/12
Read Re: 1) Just u*e and u^2(!!); 2) IOTs vs “proper”
tests
Ray Koopman
12/10/12
Read Response to your last re Q and p
Halitsky
12/10/12
Read Sorry! I meant set=2, not set =1 in last post ...
Halitsky
12/11/12
Read Re: Response to your last re Q and p
Ray Koopman
12/11/12
Read 1) yes - I am using abs(t); 2) subtraction from 1
Halitsky
12/10/12
Read Results of p's obtained by referring Q’s to the ch
i-square distribution.
Halitsky
12/11/12
Read Correction to harmless "thought-typo" in last post
Halitsky
12/11/12
Read Another way to bring the other folds in might be via investigation of
your average slopes and covar vis a vis "hetness"
Halitsky
12/11/12
Read Re: Results of p's obtained by referring Q’s to th
e chi-square distribution.
Ray Koopman
12/11/12
Read OK then, how ‘bout “hetness”? Are you amenabl
e to its further investigation?
Halitsky
12/12/12
Read Re: OK then, how ‘bout “hetness”? Are you amen
able to its further investigation?
Ray Koopman
12/12/12
Read I need to correct an apparent miscommunication regar
ding derivation of het H’s and L’s
Halitsky
12/13/12
Read Re: I need to correct an apparent miscommunication r
egarding derivation of het H’s and L’s
Ray Koopman
12/13/12
Read The SE's are in the zipped files but here they are for your
convenience ....
Halitsky
12/13/12
Read Re: The SE's are in the zipped files but here they are for your
convenience ....
Ray Koopman
12/13/12
Read Re your question about "linearity of SE’s in lengt
h"
Halitsky
12/14/12
Read Re: Re your question about "linearity of SE’s in l
ength"
Ray Koopman
12/14/12
Read Your question re features of (L,Aubqe) plots
Halitsky
12/13/12
Read I think I may have found something relevant to Aubqe
“het-ness” and heteroscedasticity
Halitsky
12/13/12
Read Re: I think I may have found something relevant to A
ubqe “het-ness” and heteroscedasticity
Ray Koopman
12/14/12
Read Re your questions about the plots sent off-line (and the underlying
data posted here 12/13 at 10:33am)
Halitsky
12/14/12
Read Re: Re your questions about the plots sent off-line (and the
underlying data posted here 12/13 at 10:33am)
Ray Koopman
12/14/12
Read Thanks for the terminological/methodological corrections, and also
for the ref to gnuplot.
Halitsky
12/14/12
Read Re: Thanks for the terminological/methodological corrections, and
also for the ref to gnuplot.
Ray Koopman
12/14/12
Read Response to your last of 12/14 at 227pm re terminology and methodology.
Halitsky
12/14/12
Read Re linearity of the Axxxx SE plots – hold on to yo
ur hat
Halitsky
12/14/12
Read Re: Re linearity of the Axxxx SE plots – hold on t
o your hat
Ray Koopman
12/14/12
Read Thanks for doing those two plots - yes - we agree on what we're seeing
Halitsky
12/14/12
Read Re: Thanks for doing those two plots - yes - we agree on what we're seeing
Ray Koopman
12/15/12
Read Re: Thanks for doing those two plots - yes - we agree on what we're seeing
Ray Koopman
12/15/12
Read Re plot of SEP against L
Halitsky
12/15/12
Read Effect of multiplying SE by sqrt(N), as per your post of 12/14 at 10:34pm
Halitsky
12/15/12
Read Re: Effect of multiplying SE by sqrt(N), as per your post of 12/14 at 10:34pm
Ray Koopman
12/14/12
Read One other general question regarding scaling to [0,1].
Halitsky
12/14/12
Read Re: One other general question regarding scaling to [0,1].
Ray Koopman
12/14/12
Read Sorry - I will be typographically more careful re Aubqe in the future.
Halitsky
12/1/12
Read Re: Interpretation of coefficients in multiple regressions which
model linear dependence on an IV
Ray Koopman
12/1/12
Read Thanks for elucidation of 2nd new regression.
Halitsky
12/1/12
Read Re: Interpretation of coefficients in multiple regressions which
model linear dependence on an IV
Ray Koopman
12/1/12
Read Roger corrected defs; also, will add new cov, just in case it's
needed later
Halitsky
12/2/12
Read Re: Interpretation of coefficients in multiple regressions which
model linear dependence on an IV
Ray Koopman
12/2/12
Read 1) thanks for the 3rd regression defs; 2) Yes - I see why the terms
aren't "symmetrical" in this case.
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read New copies of a1_N_1_C and a1_N_1_S with data for all three
regressions at each singleton length.
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Since 3rd regression computation needs df = 5, am requiring 15
observations for any given length singleton in any cell
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Have sent off-line all N_1 regression coefficient files and master N
per length index file for N1
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Same as above post for f_N_2_ss
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Same as above post for f_N_3_ss
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Same as above post for f_R_1_ss
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Same as above post for f_R_2_ss
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Same as above post for f_R_3_ss
Halitsky
12/3/12
Read Re: Since 3rd regression computation needs df = 5, am requiring 15
observations for any given length singleton in any cell
Ray Koopman
12/4/12
Read Sparseness of b1 data ...
Halitsky
12/4/12
Read I realized I should clarify my 4-way b1 match table: it's AFTER
subtracting df of 3
Halitsky
12/4/12
Read Re: I realized I should clarify my 4-way b1 match table: it's AFTER
subtracting df of 3
Ray Koopman
12/4/12
Read No - the counts in the files themselves are all OK.
Halitsky
12/4/12
Read Re: Sparseness of b1 data ...
Ray Koopman
12/5/12
Read We cross posted, so I just saw your revised "counts" table after I
made my last two posts ...
Halitsky
12/4/12
Read Let me know if you're ready for some interesting data, or if you're
too busy analyzing
Halitsky
12/4/12
Read Re: Let me know if you're ready for some interesting data, or if
you're too busy analyzing
Ray Koopman
12/4/12
Read Please evaluate this "yield" table of method/subset avg slope 2-ways
per fold and len with p < .05
Halitsky
12/5/12
Read One other question about using Auq avg slope as a constant when
computing the other two regressions
Halitsky
12/5/12
Read Re: One other question about using Auq avg slope as a constant when
computing the other two regressions
Ray Koopman
12/5/12
Read Re: One other question about using Auq avg slope as a constant when
computing the other two regressions
Halitsky
12/4/12
Read Some of your counts apparently ARE off.
Halitsky
12/4/12
Read Sorry! those counts in my last post were for len 63 in b1 (forgot to
tell you the length!!!!)
Halitsky
12/4/12
Read Re: Since 3rd regression computation needs df = 5, am requiring 15
observations for any given length singleton in any cell
Ray Koopman

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.