# load packages
library(tidyverse)
library(tidymodels)
library(openintro)
library(patchwork)
library(knitr)
library(kableExtra)
library(viridis) #adjust color palette
# set default theme and larger font size for ggplot2
::theme_set(ggplot2::theme_minimal(base_size = 16)) ggplot2
Multiple linear regression
Types of predictors
Announcements
Lab 02 due TODAY at 11:59pm
HW 01 due Thursday, January 30 at 11:59pm
Topics
Categorical predictors
Centering quantitative predictors
Standardizing quantitative predictors
Interaction terms
Computing setup
Data: Peer-to-peer lender
Today’s data is a sample of 50 loans made through a peer-to-peer lending club. The data is in the loan50
data frame in the openintro R package.
# A tibble: 50 × 4
annual_income_th debt_to_income verified_income interest_rate
<dbl> <dbl> <fct> <dbl>
1 59 0.558 Not Verified 10.9
2 60 1.31 Not Verified 9.92
3 75 1.06 Verified 26.3
4 75 0.574 Not Verified 9.92
5 254 0.238 Not Verified 9.43
6 67 1.08 Source Verified 9.92
7 28.8 0.0997 Source Verified 17.1
8 80 0.351 Not Verified 6.08
9 34 0.698 Not Verified 7.97
10 80 0.167 Source Verified 12.6
# ℹ 40 more rows
Variables
Predictors:
annual_income_th
: Annual income (in $1000s)debt_to_income
: Debt-to-income ratio, i.e. the percentage of a borrower’s total debt divided by their total incomeverified_income
: Whether borrower’s income source and amount have been verified (Not Verified
,Source Verified
,Verified
)
Response: interest_rate
: Interest rate for the loan
Response vs. predictors
Goal: Use these predictors in a single model to understand variability in interest rate.
Model fit in R
<- lm(interest_rate ~ debt_to_income + verified_income + annual_income_th,
int_fit data = loan50)
tidy(int_fit) |>
kable(digits = 3)
term | estimate | std.error | statistic | p.value |
---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 10.726 | 1.507 | 7.116 | 0.000 |
debt_to_income | 0.671 | 0.676 | 0.993 | 0.326 |
verified_incomeSource Verified | 2.211 | 1.399 | 1.581 | 0.121 |
verified_incomeVerified | 6.880 | 1.801 | 3.820 | 0.000 |
annual_income_th | -0.021 | 0.011 | -1.804 | 0.078 |
Categorical predictors
Matrix form of multiple linear regression
Indicator variables
Suppose there is a categorical variable with
levelsWe can make
indicator variables from the data - one indicator for each levelAn indicator (dummy) variable takes values 1 or 0
1 if the observation belongs to that level
0 if the observation does not belong to that level
Indicator variables
Suppose we want to predict the amount of sleep a Duke student gets based on whether they are in Pratt (Pratt Yes/ No are the only two options). Consider the model
Write out the design matrix for this hypothesized linear model.
Demonstrate that the design matrix is not of full column rank (that is, affirmatively provide one of the columns in terms of the others).
Use this intuition to explain why when we include categorical predictors, we cannot include both indicators for every level of the variable and an intercept.
Indicator variables for verified_income
<- loan50 |>
loan50 mutate(
not_verified = factor(if_else(verified_income == "Not Verified", 1, 0)),
source_verified = factor(if_else(verified_income == "Source Verified", 1, 0)),
verified = factor(if_else(verified_income == "Verified", 1, 0))
)
. . .
# A tibble: 3 × 4
verified_income not_verified source_verified verified
<fct> <fct> <fct> <fct>
1 Not Verified 1 0 0
2 Verified 0 0 1
3 Source Verified 0 1 0
Indicator variables in the model
Given a categorical predictor with
- Use
indicator variables in the model - The baseline is the category that doesn’t have a term in the model
- This is also called the reference level
- The coefficients of the indicator variables in the model are interpreted as the expected change in the response compared to the baseline, holding all other variables constant.
Application exercise
📋 https://sta221-sp25.netlify.app/ae/ae-02-mlr.html
Complete Part 1
Interpreting verified_income
term | estimate | std.error | statistic | p.value | conf.low | conf.high |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 10.726 | 1.507 | 7.116 | 0.000 | 7.690 | 13.762 |
debt_to_income | 0.671 | 0.676 | 0.993 | 0.326 | -0.690 | 2.033 |
verified_incomeSource Verified | 2.211 | 1.399 | 1.581 | 0.121 | -0.606 | 5.028 |
verified_incomeVerified | 6.880 | 1.801 | 3.820 | 0.000 | 3.253 | 10.508 |
annual_income_th | -0.021 | 0.011 | -1.804 | 0.078 | -0.043 | 0.002 |
. . .
- The baseline level is
Not verified
. - People with source verified income are expected to take a loan with an interest rate that is 2.211% higher, on average, than the rate on loans to those whose income is not verified, holding all else constant.
Centering
Centering a quantitative predictor means shifting every value by some constant
One common type of centering is mean-centering, in which every value of a predictor is shifted by its mean
Only quantitative predictors are centered
Center all quantitative predictors in the model for ease of interpretation
What is one reason one might want to center the quantitative predictors? What is are the units of centered variables?
Centering
Use the scale()
function with center = TRUE
and scale = FALSE
to mean-center variables
<- loan50 |>
loan50 mutate(debt_to_inc_cent = scale(debt_to_income, center = TRUE, scale = FALSE),
annual_inc_cent = scale(annual_income_th, center = TRUE, scale = FALSE))
lm(interest_rate ~ debt_to_inc_cent + verified_income + annual_inc_cent, data = loan50) |>
tidy() |> kable(digits = 3)
term | estimate | std.error | statistic | p.value |
---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 9.444 | 0.977 | 9.663 | 0.000 |
debt_to_inc_cent | 0.671 | 0.676 | 0.993 | 0.326 |
verified_incomeSource Verified | 2.211 | 1.399 | 1.581 | 0.121 |
verified_incomeVerified | 6.880 | 1.801 | 3.820 | 0.000 |
annual_inc_cent | -0.021 | 0.011 | -1.804 | 0.078 |
Centering
Term | Original Model | Centered Model |
---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 10.726 | 9.444 |
debt_to_income | 0.671 | 0.671 |
verified_incomeSource Verified | 2.211 | 2.211 |
verified_incomeVerified | 6.880 | 6.880 |
annual_income_th | -0.021 | -0.021 |
How has the model changed? How has the model remained the same?
Standardizing
Standardizing a quantitative predictor mean shifting every value by the mean and dividing by the standard deviation of that variable
Only quantitative predictors are standardized
Standardize all quantitative predictors in the model for ease of interpretation
What is one reason one might want to standardize the quantitative predictors? What is are the units of standardized variables?
Standardizing
Use the scale()
function with center = TRUE
and scale = TRUE
to standardized variables
<- loan50 |>
loan50 mutate(debt_to_inc_std = scale(debt_to_income, center = TRUE, scale = TRUE),
annual_inc_std = scale(annual_income_th, center = TRUE, scale = TRUE))
lm(interest_rate ~ debt_to_inc_std + verified_income + annual_inc_std, data = loan50) |>
tidy() |> kable(digits = 3)
term | estimate | std.error | statistic | p.value |
---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 9.444 | 0.977 | 9.663 | 0.000 |
debt_to_inc_std | 0.643 | 0.648 | 0.993 | 0.326 |
verified_incomeSource Verified | 2.211 | 1.399 | 1.581 | 0.121 |
verified_incomeVerified | 6.880 | 1.801 | 3.820 | 0.000 |
annual_inc_std | -1.180 | 0.654 | -1.804 | 0.078 |
Standardizing
Term | Original Model | Standardized Model |
---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 10.726 | 9.444 |
debt_to_income | 0.671 | 0.643 |
verified_incomeSource Verified | 2.211 | 2.211 |
verified_incomeVerified | 6.880 | 6.880 |
annual_income_th | -0.021 | -1.180 |
How has the model changed? How has the model remained the same?
Interaction terms
Interaction terms
- Sometimes the relationship between a predictor variable and the response depends on the value of another predictor variable.
- This is an interaction effect.
- To account for this, we can include interaction terms in the model.
Interest rate vs. annual income
The lines are not parallel indicating there is a potential interaction effect. The slope of annual income differs based on the income verification.
Application exercise
📋 https://sta221-sp25.netlify.app/ae/ae-02-mlr.html
Complete Part 2
Interaction term in model
<- lm(interest_rate ~ debt_to_income + verified_income + annual_income_th + verified_income * annual_income_th,
int_fit_2 data = loan50)
term | estimate | std.error | statistic | p.value |
---|---|---|---|---|
(Intercept) | 9.560 | 2.034 | 4.700 | 0.000 |
debt_to_income | 0.691 | 0.685 | 1.009 | 0.319 |
verified_incomeSource Verified | 3.577 | 2.539 | 1.409 | 0.166 |
verified_incomeVerified | 9.923 | 3.654 | 2.716 | 0.009 |
annual_income_th | -0.007 | 0.020 | -0.341 | 0.735 |
verified_incomeSource Verified:annual_income_th | -0.016 | 0.026 | -0.643 | 0.523 |
verified_incomeVerified:annual_income_th | -0.032 | 0.033 | -0.979 | 0.333 |
Interpreting interaction terms
- What the interaction means: The effect of annual income on the interest rate differs by -0.016 when the income is source verified compared to when it is not verified, holding all else constant.
- Interpreting
annual_income
for source verified: If the income is source verified, we expect the interest rate to decrease by 0.023% (-0.007 + -0.016) for each additional thousand dollars in annual income, holding all else constant.
Recap
Interpreted categorical predictors
Explored by
indicators are included in a modelFit and interpreted models with centered and standardized variables
Interpreted interaction terms
Next class
- Model comparison for multiple linear regression