1 / 19

Regression Examples

Regression Examples. Gas Mileage 1993. SOURCES: Consumer Reports: The 1993 Cars - Annual Auto Issue (April 1993), Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union. PACE New Car & Truck 1993 Buying Guide (1993), Milwaukee, WI: Pace Publications Inc.

amory
Download Presentation

Regression Examples

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Regression Examples

  2. Gas Mileage 1993 SOURCES: • Consumer Reports: The 1993 Cars - Annual Auto Issue (April 1993), Yonkers, NY: Consumers Union. • PACE New Car & Truck 1993 Buying Guide (1993), Milwaukee, WI: Pace Publications Inc. • Specifications are given for 93 new car models for the 1993 year.

  3. Gas Mileage vs Weight • Several measures are available, such as price, mpg ratings, engine size, cylinders, weight, horsepower, etc. • We consider the relationship between weight and highway mpg. • Since more fuel is needed to move more weight, an increase in weight should result in a decrease in mpg.

  4. SAS Output Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 93 Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 mpg weight mpg 1.00000 -0.81066 <.0001 weight -0.81066 1.00000 <.0001

  5. The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: mpg Number of Observations Read 93 Number of Observations Used 93 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 1 1718.69528 1718.69528 174.43 <.0001 Error 91 896.61655 9.85293 Corrected Total 92 2615.31183 Root MSE 3.13894 R-Square 0.6572 Dependent Mean 29.08602 Adj R-Sq 0.6534 Coeff Var 10.79191 Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard Variable DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| Intercept 1 51.60137 1.73555 29.73 <.0001 weight 1 -0.00733 0.00055477 -13.21 <.0001

  6. Interpretation • From the graph it is evident that there is a fairly strong negative correlation between weight and mpg. • The correlation output tells us that r=-.81. • The regression output, under parameter estimates, tells us that the equation for the least squares line (best fit line) is mpg=51.6 - .0073*weight. • Also, there are standard errors for the estimates that can be used to build confidence intervals, and there are t-values and p-values for a test of the hypothesis Ho: Parameter=0 (vs not =0). • Since the p-value for weight is .0001, we can reject Ho and conclude that there is a linear relationship between weight and mpg (weight contributes information about mpg, or helps to predict mpg).

  7. Gas Mileage vs Engine Size • Generally speaking, larger engines burn more fuel (but is this due to weight?). • We can check the relationship between liters (engine displacement) and mpg. • We expect a negative relationship, since a larger engine would tend to decrease mpg.

  8. Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 93 Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 mpg liters mpg 1.00000 -0.62679 <.0001 liters -0.62679 1.00000 <.0001

  9. The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: mpg Number of Observations Read 93 Number of Observations Used 93 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 1 1027.48125 1027.48125 58.89 <.0001 Error 91 1587.83058 17.44869 Corrected Total 92 2615.31183 Root MSE 4.17716 R-Square 0.3929 Dependent Mean 29.08602 Adj R-Sq 0.3862 Coeff Var 14.36141 Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard Variable DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| Intercept 1 37.68023 1.20080 31.38 <.0001 liters 1 -3.22153 0.41981 -7.67 <.0001

  10. Interpretation • From the first graph it is evident that there is a negative relationship between weight and mpg. • However, the pattern is not purely linear. It seems to be some kind of curve. Thus we will not expect a linear analysis to tell the whole story. • The correlation output tells us that r=-.63. • The regression output, tells us that the equation for the least squares line is mpg=37.68 – 3.22*liters. • The p-value for liters is .0001, so we conclude that mpg has a linear relationship with engine size. • Which is a better predictor of mpg, engine size or weight? We can use the R-square value to determine that. For weight it is .6572, and for liters it is .3929.

  11. More Advanced Interpretation • Which is a better predictor of mpg, engine size or weight? We can use the R-square value to determine that. For weight it is .6572, and for liters it is .3929. • R-square is an indication of the proportion of changes in y that are accounted for by x, so a larger value corresponds to a better predictor. Thus weight is a better predictor than engine size. • The graphs show the best fit line and a best fit parabola (quadratic equation). The latter is provided for comparison purposes only. • Note that the quadratic equation, even though it fits the points better, may not be a better model, because it shows mpg rising as engine sizes get very large. This does not make sense.

  12. Brief Look at Multiple Regression • Now you might think, what if we wanted to use both weight and engine size to predict mpg? • This idea is called multiple regression, and it involves making an equation with two or more “x” variables to predict y. • The next regression output shows this. • Compare the R-square and p-values to previous results.

  13. The REG Procedure Model: MODEL1 Dependent Variable: mpg Number of Observations Read 93 Number of Observations Used 93 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Source DF Squares Square F Value Pr > F Model 2 1749.76356 874.88178 90.97 <.0001 Error 90 865.54826 9.61720 Corrected Total 92 2615.31183 Root MSE 3.10116 R-Square 0.6690 Dependent Mean 29.08602 Adj R-Sq 0.6617 Coeff Var 10.66203 Parameter Estimates Parameter Standard Variable DF Estimate Error t Value Pr > |t| Intercept 1 53.59100 2.04095 26.26 <.0001 liters 1 1.04777 0.58295 1.80 0.0756 weight 1 -0.00888 0.00103 -8.67 <.0001

  14. Interpretation • The least squares equation is mpg=53.6-1.05*liters-.00888*weight. • The R-square for weight alone is .6572. In the new model, it is .6690. It has gone up, but not much. This means that adding engine size to the equation does not improve predicted mpg very much. • The p-value for weight is still very small, but the p-value for liters is now suspiciously large. Using alpha=.05, we would not reject that the coefficient of liters is zero, which means we are not able to detect a contribution to mpg.

More Related