Error Regression Model
Contents |
model Generalized linear model Discrete choice Logistic regression Multinomial logit Mixed logit Probit Multinomial probit Ordered logit Ordered probit Poisson Multilevel model Fixed effects Random regression model error term effects Mixed model Nonlinear regression Nonparametric Semiparametric Robust Quantile Isotonic
Regression Model Error Assumptions
Principal components Least angle Local Segmented Errors-in-variables Estimation Least squares Ordinary least squares Linear (math) Partial Total error linear regression Generalized Weighted Non-linear Non-negative Iteratively reweighted Ridge regression Least absolute deviations Bayesian Bayesian multivariate Background Regression model validation Mean and predicted response Errors and residuals Goodness of
Error In Regression Analysis
fit Studentized residual Gauss–Markov theorem Statistics portal v t e In statistical modeling, regression analysis is a statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables. It includes many techniques for modeling and analyzing several variables, when the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables (or 'predictors'). More error in regression line specifically, regression analysis helps one understand how the typical value of the dependent variable (or 'criterion variable') changes when any one of the independent variables is varied, while the other independent variables are held fixed. Most commonly, regression analysis estimates the conditional expectation of the dependent variable given the independent variables – that is, the average value of the dependent variable when the independent variables are fixed. Less commonly, the focus is on a quantile, or other location parameter of the conditional distribution of the dependent variable given the independent variables. In all cases, the estimation target is a function of the independent variables called the regression function. In regression analysis, it is also of interest to characterize the variation of the dependent variable around the regression function which can be described by a probability distribution. A related but distinct approach is necessary condition analysis[1] (NCA), which estimates the maximum (rather than average) value of the dependent variable for a given valu
it comes to determining how well a linear model fits the data. However, I've stated previously that R-squared is overrated. Is there a different goodness-of-fit statistic that can be more
Error In Regression Is Figured By
helpful? You bet! Today, I’ll highlight a sorely underappreciated regression statistic: S, or the
Error In Regression Equation
standard error of the regression. S provides important information that R-squared does not. What is the Standard Error of the regression in stats Regression (S)? S becomes smaller when the data points are closer to the line. In the regression output for Minitab statistical software, you can find S in the Summary of Model section, right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis next to R-squared. Both statistics provide an overall measure of how well the model fits the data. S is known both as the standard error of the regression and as the standard error of the estimate. S represents the average distance that the observed values fall from the regression line. Conveniently, it tells you how wrong the regression model is on average using the units of the response http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventures-in-statistics/regression-analysis-how-to-interpret-s-the-standard-error-of-the-regression variable. Smaller values are better because it indicates that the observations are closer to the fitted line. The fitted line plot shown above is from my post where I use BMI to predict body fat percentage. S is 3.53399, which tells us that the average distance of the data points from the fitted line is about 3.5% body fat. Unlike R-squared, you can use the standard error of the regression to assess the precision of the predictions. Approximately 95% of the observations should fall within plus/minus 2*standard error of the regression from the regression line, which is also a quick approximation of a 95% prediction interval. For the BMI example, about 95% of the observations should fall within plus/minus 7% of the fitted line, which is a close match for the prediction interval. Why I Like the Standard Error of the Regression (S) In many cases, I prefer the standard error of the regression over R-squared. I love the practical, intuitiveness of using the natural units of the response variable. And, if I need precise predictions, I can quickly check S to assess the precision. Conversely, the unit-less R-squared doesn’t provide an intuitive feel for how close the predicted values
the estimate from a scatter plot Compute the standard error of the estimate based on errors of prediction Compute the standard error using Pearson's correlation Estimate the standard http://onlinestatbook.com/2/regression/accuracy.html error of the estimate based on a sample Figure 1 shows http://scott.fortmann-roe.com/docs/MeasuringError.html two regression examples. You can see that in Graph A, the points are closer to the line than they are in Graph B. Therefore, the predictions in Graph A are more accurate than in Graph B. Figure 1. Regressions differing in accuracy of prediction. The standard error of error in the estimate is a measure of the accuracy of predictions. Recall that the regression line is the line that minimizes the sum of squared deviations of prediction (also called the sum of squares error). The standard error of the estimate is closely related to this quantity and is defined below: where σest is the standard error of the estimate, Y error in regression is an actual score, Y' is a predicted score, and N is the number of pairs of scores. The numerator is the sum of squared differences between the actual scores and the predicted scores. Note the similarity of the formula for σest to the formula for σ.  It turns out that σest is the standard deviation of the errors of prediction (each Y - Y' is an error of prediction). Assume the data in Table 1 are the data from a population of five X, Y pairs. Table 1. Example data. X Y Y' Y-Y' (Y-Y')2 1.00 1.00 1.210 -0.210 0.044 2.00 2.00 1.635 0.365 0.133 3.00 1.30 2.060 -0.760 0.578 4.00 3.75 2.485 1.265 1.600 5.00 2.25 2.910 -0.660 0.436 Sum 15.00 10.30 10.30 0.000 2.791 The last column shows that the sum of the squared errors of prediction is 2.791. Therefore, the standard error of the estimate is There is a version of the formula for the standard error in terms of Pearson's correlation: where ρ is the
measure its prediction error is of key importance. Often, however, techniques of measuring error are used that give grossly misleading results. This can lead to the phenomenon of over-fitting where a model may fit the training data very well, but will do a poor job of predicting results for new data not used in model training. Here is an overview of methods to accurately measure model prediction error. Measuring Error When building prediction models, the primary goal should be to make a model that most accurately predicts the desired target value for new data. The measure of model error that is used should be one that achieves this goal. In practice, however, many modelers instead report a measure of model error that is based not on the error for new data but instead on the error the very same data that was used to train the model. The use of this incorrect error measure can lead to the selection of an inferior and inaccurate model. Naturally, any model is highly optimized for the data it was trained on. The expected error the model exhibits on new data will always be higher than that it exhibits on the training data. As example, we could go out and sample 100 people and create a regression model to predict an individual's happiness based on their wealth. We can record the squared error for how well our model does on this training set of a hundred people. If we then sampled a different 100 people from the population and applied our model to this new group of people, the squared error will almost always be higher in this second case. It is helpful to illustrate this fact with an equation. We can develop a relationship between how well a model predicts on new data (its true prediction error and the thing we really care about) and how well it predicts on the training data (which is what many modelers in fact measure). $$ True\ Prediction\ Error = Training\ Error + Training\ Optimism $$ Here, Training Optimism is basically a measure of how much worse our model does on new data compared to the training data. The more optimistic we are, the better our training error will be compared to what the true error is and the worse our training error will be as an approximation of the true error. The Danger of Overfitting In general, we would like to be able to make the claim that the optimism is constant for a given training set. If this were true, we could make the argument that the model that minimizes training error, will also be the model that will minimize the true predic