问题
In order to correct heteroskedasticity in error terms, I am running the following weighted least squares regression in R :
#Call:
#lm(formula = a ~ q + q2 + b + c, data = mydata, weights = weighting)
#Weighted Residuals:
# Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
#-1.83779 -0.33226 0.02011 0.25135 1.48516
#Coefficients:
# Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) -3.939440 0.609991 -6.458 1.62e-09 ***
#q 0.175019 0.070101 2.497 0.013696 *
#q2 0.048790 0.005613 8.693 8.49e-15 ***
#b 0.473891 0.134918 3.512 0.000598 ***
#c 0.119551 0.125430 0.953 0.342167
#---
#Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
#Residual standard error: 0.5096 on 140 degrees of freedom
#Multiple R-squared: 0.9639, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9628
#F-statistic: 933.6 on 4 and 140 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
Where "weighting" is a variable (function of the variable q) used for weighting the observations. q2 is simply q^2.
Now, to double-check my results, I manually weight my variables by creating new weighted variables :
mydata$a.wls <- mydata$a * mydata$weighting
mydata$q.wls <- mydata$q * mydata$weighting
mydata$q2.wls <- mydata$q2 * mydata$weighting
mydata$b.wls <- mydata$b * mydata$weighting
mydata$c.wls <- mydata$c * mydata$weighting
And run the following regression, without the weights option, and without a constant - since the constant is weighted, the column of 1 in the original predictor matrix should now equal the variable weighting:
Call:
lm(formula = a.wls ~ 0 + weighting + q.wls + q2.wls + b.wls + c.wls,
data = mydata)
#Residuals:
# Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
#-2.38404 -0.55784 0.01922 0.49838 2.62911
#Coefficients:
# Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#weighting -4.125559 0.579093 -7.124 5.05e-11 ***
#q.wls 0.217722 0.081851 2.660 0.008726 **
#q2.wls 0.045664 0.006229 7.330 1.67e-11 ***
#b.wls 0.466207 0.121429 3.839 0.000186 ***
#c.wls 0.133522 0.112641 1.185 0.237876
#---
#Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
#Residual standard error: 0.915 on 140 degrees of freedom
#Multiple R-squared: 0.9823, Adjusted R-squared: 0.9817
#F-statistic: 1556 on 5 and 140 DF, p-value: < 2.2e-16
As you can see, the results are similar but not identical. Am I doing something wrong while manually weighting the variables, or does the option "weights" do something more than simply multiplying the variables by the weighting vector?
回答1:
Provided you do manual weighting correctly, you won't see discrepancy.
So the correct way to go is:
X <- model.matrix(~ q + q2 + b + c, mydata) ## non-weighted model matrix (with intercept)
w <- mydata$weighting ## weights
rw <- sqrt(w) ## root weights
y <- mydata$a ## non-weighted response
X_tilde <- rw * X ## weighted model matrix (with intercept)
y_tilde <- rw * y ## weighted response
## remember to drop intercept when using formula
fit_by_wls <- lm(y ~ X - 1, weights = w)
fit_by_ols <- lm(y_tilde ~ X_tilde - 1)
Although it is generally recommended to use lm.fit and lm.wfit when passing in matrix directly:
matfit_by_wls <- lm.wfit(X, y, w)
matfit_by_ols <- lm.fit(X_tilde, y_tilde)
But when using these internal subroutines lm.fit and lm.wfit, it is required that all input are complete cases without NA, otherwise the underlying C routine stats:::C_Cdqrls will complain.
If you still want to use the formula interface rather than matrix, you can do the following:
## weight by square root of weights, not weights
mydata$root.weighting <- sqrt(mydata$weighting)
mydata$a.wls <- mydata$a * mydata$root.weighting
mydata$q.wls <- mydata$q * mydata$root.weighting
mydata$q2.wls <- mydata$q2 * mydata$root.weighting
mydata$b.wls <- mydata$b * mydata$root.weighting
mydata$c.wls <- mydata$c * mydata$root.weighting
fit_by_wls <- lm(formula = a ~ q + q2 + b + c, data = mydata, weights = weighting)
fit_by_ols <- lm(formula = a.wls ~ 0 + root.weighting + q.wls + q2.wls + b.wls + c.wls,
data = mydata)
Reproducible Example
Let's use R's built-in data set trees. Use head(trees) to inspect this dataset. There is no NA in this dataset. We aim to fit a model:
Height ~ Girth + Volume
with some random weights between 1 and 2:
set.seed(0); w <- runif(nrow(trees), 1, 2)
We fit this model via weighted regression, either by passing weights to lm, or manually transforming data and calling lm with no weigths:
X <- model.matrix(~ Girth + Volume, trees) ## non-weighted model matrix (with intercept)
rw <- sqrt(w) ## root weights
y <- trees$Height ## non-weighted response
X_tilde <- rw * X ## weighted model matrix (with intercept)
y_tilde <- rw * y ## weighted response
fit_by_wls <- lm(y ~ X - 1, weights = w)
#Call:
#lm(formula = y ~ X - 1, weights = w)
#Coefficients:
#X(Intercept) XGirth XVolume
# 83.2127 -1.8639 0.5843
fit_by_ols <- lm(y_tilde ~ X_tilde - 1)
#Call:
#lm(formula = y_tilde ~ X_tilde - 1)
#Coefficients:
#X_tilde(Intercept) X_tildeGirth X_tildeVolume
# 83.2127 -1.8639 0.5843
So indeed, we see identical results.
Alternatively, we can use lm.fit and lm.wfit:
matfit_by_wls <- lm.wfit(X, y, w)
matfit_by_ols <- lm.fit(X_tilde, y_tilde)
We can check coefficients by:
matfit_by_wls$coefficients
#(Intercept) Girth Volume
# 83.2127455 -1.8639351 0.5843191
matfit_by_ols$coefficients
#(Intercept) Girth Volume
# 83.2127455 -1.8639351 0.5843191
Again, results are the same.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39315867/r-lm-result-differs-when-using-weights-argument-and-when-using-manually-rew