Stat 112 Notes 16

• Today:– Outliers and influential points in multiple

regression (Chapter 6.7)

Outliers and Influential Observations in Simple Regression• Outlier: Any really unusual observation.• Outlier in the X direction (called high leverage point):

Has the potential to influence the regression line.• Outlier in the direction of the scatterplot: An

observation that deviates from the overall pattern of relationship between Y and X. Typically has a residual that is large in absolute value.

• Influential observation: Point that if it is removed would markedly change the statistical analysis. For simple linear regression, points that are outliers in the x direction are often influential.

Influential Points, High Leverage Points, Outliers in Multiple

Regression• As in simple linear regression, we identify high leverage

and high influence points by checking the leverages and Cook’s distances (Use save columns to save Cook’s D Influence and Hats).

• High influence points: Cook’s distance > 1• High leverage points: Points for which the explanatory

variables are an outlier in a multidimensional sense. Hat greater than (3*(# of explanatory variables + 1))/n is a point with high leverage.

• Use same guidelines for dealing with influential observations as in simple linear regression.

• Point that has unusual Y given its explanatory variables: point with a residual that is more than 3 RMSEs away from zero.

Multiple regression, modeling and outliers, leverage and influential points

Pollution Example

• Data set pollution2.JMP provides information about the relationship between pollution and mortality for 60 cities between 1959-1961.

• The variables are• y (MORT)=total age adjusted mortality in deaths per 100,000

population; • PRECIP=mean annual precipitation (in inches);

EDUC=median number of school years completed for persons 25 and older; NONWHITE=percentage of 1960 population that is nonwhite; NOX=relative pollution potential of Nox (related to amount of tons of Nox emitted per day per square kilometer);

SO2=log of relative pollution potential of SO2

Multiple Regression: Steps in Analysis

1. Preliminaries: Define the question of interest. Review the design of the study. Correct errors in the data.

2. Explore the data. Use graphical tools, e.g., scatterplot matrix; consider transformations of explanatory variables; fit a tentative model; check for outliers and influential points.

3. Formulate an inferential model. Word the questions of interest in terms of model parameters.

Multiple Regression: Steps in Analysis Continued

4. Check the Model. (a) Check the model assumptions of linearity, constant variance, normality. (b) If needed, return to step 2 and make changes to the model (such as transformations or adding terms for interaction and curvature

5. Infer the answers to the questions of interest using appropriate inferential tools (e.g., confidence intervals, hypothesis tests, prediction intervals).

6. Presentation: Communicate the results to the intended audience.

Scatterplot Matrix

• Before fitting a multiple linear regression model, it is good idea to make scatterplots of the response variable versus the explanatory variable. This can suggest transformations of the explanatory variables that need to be done as well as potential outliers and influential points.

• Scatterplot matrix in JMP: Click Analyze, Multivariate Methods and Multivariate, and then put the response variable first in the Y, columns box and then the explanatory variables in the Y, columns box.

Scatterplot Matrix

750

850

950

1050

0

20

40

8.5

9.5

10.5

11.5

0

10

20

30

0

100

200

-1

1

3

MORT

750 950

PRECIP

0 20 40

EDUC

8.5 10.0

NONWHITE

0 10 20 30

NOX

0 100 250

SO2

-1 1 3 5

Crunched Variables

• When an X variable is “crunched” – meaning that most of its values are crunched together and a few are far apart – there will be influential points. To reduce the effects of crunching, it is a good idea to transform the variable to log of the variable.

• When a Y variable is crunched, it is often times also useful to transform it to log Y.

2. a) From the scatter plot of MORT vs. NOX we see that NOX values are crunched very tight. A Log transformation of NOX is needed.

b) There seems to be approximately a linear relationship between MORT and the other variables

Scatterplot Matrix

750

850

950

1050

0

20

40

8.5

9.5

10.5

11.5

0

10

20

30

0

100

200

-1

1

3

-1

1

3

MORT

750 950

PRECIP

0 20 40

EDUC

8.5 10.5

NONWHITE

0 10 20 30

NOX

0 100 250

log NOX

-1 1 3 5

SO2

-1 1 3 5

Response MORT Summary of Fit RSquare 0.688278 RSquare Adj 0.659415 Root Mean Square Error 36.30065 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 940.6541 94.05424 10.00 <.0001 PRECIP 1.9467286 0.700696 2.78 0.0075 EDUC -14.66406 6.937846 -2.11 0.0392 NONWHITE 3.028953 0.668519 4.53 <.0001 log NOX 6.7159712 7.39895 0.91 0.3681 S02 11.35814 5.295487 2.14 0.0365 Residual by Predicted Plot

-100

-50

0

50

100

MO

RT

Res

idua

l

New Orleans, LA

750 800 850 900 950 100010501100

MORT Predicted

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

New Orleans, LA

Cook’s Distances

NewOrleanshasCook’sDistancegreater than 1 –New Orleans may be influential.

3 RMSEs=108No points are outliersin residuals

Labeling Observations

• To have points identified by a certain column, go the column, click Columns and click Label (click Unlabel to Unlabel).

• To label a row, go to the row, click rows and click label.

•

Multiple Regression with New Orleans Summary of Fit RSquare 0.688278 RSquare Adj 0.659415 Root Mean Square Error 36.30065 Mean of Response 940.3568 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 60 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 5 157115.28 31423.1 23.8462 Error 54 71157.80 1317.7 Prob > F C. Total 59 228273.08 <.0001 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 940.6541 94.05424 10.00 <.0001 PRECIP 1.9467286 0.700696 2.78 0.0075 EDUC -14.66406 6.937846 -2.11 0.0392 NONWHITE 3.028953 0.668519 4.53 <.0001 Log NOX 6.7159712 7.39895 0.91 0.3681 SO2 11.35814 5.295487 2.14 0.0365

Multiple Regression without New Orleans Summary of Fit RSquare 0.724661 RSquare Adj 0.698686 Root Mean Square Error 32.06752 Mean of Response 937.4297 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 59 Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio Model 5 143441.28 28688.3 27.8980 Error 53 54501.26 1028.3 Prob > F C. Total 58 197942.54 <.0001 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 852.3761 85.9328 9.92 <.0001 PRECIP 1.3633298 0.635732 2.14 0.0366 EDUC -5.666948 6.52378 -0.87 0.3889 NONWHITE 3.0396794 0.590566 5.15 <.0001 Log NOX -9.898442 7.730645 -1.28 0.2060 SO2 26.032584 5.931083 4.39 <.0001

Removing New Orleans has a large impact on the coefficients of log NOX and log SO2, in particular, it reverses the sign of log S02.

Dealing with New Orleans

• New Orleans is influential. • New Orleans also has high leverage,

hat=0.45>(3*6/60)=0.2. • Thus, it is reasonable to exclude New

Orleans from the analysis, report that we excluded New Orleans, and note that our model does not apply to cities with explanatory variables in the range of New Orleans’.

Leverage Plots

• A “simple regression view” of a multiple regression coefficient. For x j:

Residual y (w/o xj) vs. Residual xj (vs the rest of x’s)(both axes are recentered)

• Slope in leverage plot: coefficient for that variable in the multiple regression

• Distances from the points to the LS line are multiple regression residuals. Distance from point to horizontal line is the residual if the explanatory variable is not included in the model.

• Useful to identify (for xj)outliersleverageinfluential points

(Use them the same way as in a simple regression to identify the effect of points for the regression coefficient

of a particular variable)• Leverage plots are particularly useful for points which are influential

for a particular coefficient in the regression.

•

The enlarged observation New Orleans is an outlier for estimating each coefficient and is highly leveraged for estimating the coefficients of interest on log Nox SO2. Since New Orleans is both highly leveraged and an outlier, we expect it to be influential.

PRECIP Leverage Plot

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

MO

RT

Lev

erag

e R

esid

uals

10 20 30 40 50 60

PRECIP Leverage, P=0.0075

EDUC Leverage Plot

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

MO

RT

Lev

erag

e R

esid

uals

9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0

EDUC Leverage, P=0.0392

NONWHITE Leverage Plot

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

MO

RT

Lev

erag

e R

esid

uals

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

NONWHITE Leverage, P<.0001

Log NOX Leverage Plot

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

MO

RT

Lev

erag

e R

esid

uals

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Log NOX Leverage, P=0.3681

SO2 Leverage Plot

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

MO

RT

Lev

erag

e

Res

idua

ls-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SO2 Leverage, P=0.0365

Response MORT Summary of Fit RSquare 0.724661 RSquare Adj 0.698686 Root Mean Square Error 32.06752 Mean of Response 937.4297 Observations (or Sum Wgts) 59 Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Intercept 852.3761 85.9328 9.92 <.0001 PRECIP 1.3633298 0.635732 2.14 0.0366 EDUC -5.666948 6.52378 -0.87 0.3889 NONWHITE 3.0396794 0.590566 5.15 <.0001 log NOX -9.898442 7.730645 -1.28 0.2060 S02 26.032584 5.931083 4.39 <.0001

-100

-50

0

50

100

MO

RT

Res

idua

l

750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100

MORT Predicted

Analysis without New Orleans

Checking the ModelDistributions Residual MORT

-100

-50

0

50

100.01 .05 .10 .25 .50 .75 .90 .95 .99

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Normal Quantile Plot

Bivariate Fit of Residual MORT By PRECIP

-100

-50

0

50

100

Res

idua

l MO

RT

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

PRECIP

Bivariate Fit of Residual MORT By EDUC

-100

-50

0

50

100

Res

idua

l MO

RT

8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5

EDUC

Bivariate Fit of Residual MORT By NONWHITE

-100

-50

0

50

100R

esid

ual M

OR

T

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

NONWHITE

Bivariate Fit of Residual MORT By log NOX

-100

-50

0

50

100

Res

idua

l MO

RT

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

log NOX

Bivariate Fit of Residual MORT By SO2

-100

-50

0

50

100

Res

idua

l MO

RT

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

SO2

Linearity, constant varianceand normality assumptions all appear reasonable.

Inference About Questions of Interest

• Strong evidence that mortality is positively associated with S02 for fixed levels of precipitation, education, nonwhite, NOX.

• No strong evidence that mortality is associated with NOX for fixed levels of precipitation, education, nonwhite, S02.

Parameter Estimates Term Estimate Std Error t Ratio Prob>|t| Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept 780.82216 24.42239 31.97 <.0001 731.85821 829.78611 PRECIP 1.520283 0.608129 2.50 0.0155 0.3010583 2.7395076 NONWHITE 3.0510356 0.589079 5.18 <.0001 1.8700043 4.2320669 log NOX -11.72078 7.423624 -1.58 0.1202 -26.60425 3.1626888 S02 28.343404 5.28898 5.36 <.0001 17.739639 38.94717

Multiple Regression and Causal Inference

• Goal: Figure out what the causal effect on mortality would be of decreasing air pollution (and keeping everything else in the world fixed)

• Lurking variable: A variable that is associated with both air pollution in a city and mortality in a city.

• In order to figure out whether air pollution causes mortality, we want to compare mean mortality among cities with different air pollution levels but the same values of the confounding variables.

• If we include all of the lurking variables in the multiple regression model, the coefficient on air pollution represents the change in the mean of mortality that is caused by a one unit increase in air pollution.

• If we omit some of the lurking variables, then there is omitted variables bias, i.e., the multiple regression coefficient on air pollution does not measure the causal effect of air pollution.