I have a list for formulas I want to fit to data, rather than running a loop I'd like to do this at once, for performance's sake. The estimations should still be separate, I'm not trying to estimate a SUR or anything. The following code does what I want
x <- matrix(rnorm(300),ncol=3)
y <- x %*% c(1,2,3)+rnorm(100)
formulae <-list(y~x[,1],
y~x[,2],
y~x[,1] + x[,2])
lapply(formulae,lm)
Unfortunately this gets somewhat slow as the length of formulae increases is there a way to truly vectorize this?
If it is any help, the only results of lm I care about are coefficients, and some standard errors.
There's not really an easy way to vectorize this, but the pdredge function from the MuMIn package gives you a pretty easy way to parallelize it (this assumes you have multiple cores on your machine or that you can set up a local cluster in one of the ways supported by the parallel package ...
library(parallel)
clust <- makeCluster(2,"PSOCK")
library(MuMIn)
Construct data:
set.seed(101)
x <- matrix(rnorm(300),ncol=3)
y <- x %*% c(1,2,3)+rnorm(100)
It will be easier to do this with a named data frame rather than an anonymous matrix:
df <- setNames(data.frame(y,x),c("y",paste0("x",1:3)))
The cluster nodes all need access to the data set:
clusterExport(clust,"df")
Fit the full model (you could use y~. to fit all variables)
full <- lm(y~x1+x2,data=df,na.action=na.fail)
Now fit all submodels (see ?MuMIn::dredge for many more options to control which submodels are fitted)
p <- pdredge(full,cluster=clust)
coef(p)
## (Intercept) x1 x2
## 3 -0.003805107 0.7488708 2.590204
## 2 -0.028502039 NA 2.665305
## 1 -0.101434662 1.0490816 NA
## 0 -0.140451160 NA NA
As I said in my comment, what you really need is a more efficient yet stable fitting routine other than lm(). Here I would provide you a well tested one written myself, called lm.chol(). It takes a formula and data, and returns:
- a coefficient summary table, as you normally see in
summary(lm(...))$coef; - Pearson estimate of residual standard error, as you get from
summary(lm(...))$sigma; - adjusted-R.squared, as you get from
summary(lm(...))$adj.r.squared.
## linear model estimation based on pivoted Cholesky factorization with Jacobi preconditioner
lm.chol <- function(formula, data) {
## stage0: get response vector and model matrix
## we did not follow the normal route: match.call, model.frame, model.response, model matrix, etc
y <- data[[as.character(formula[[2]])]]
X <- model.matrix(formula, data)
n <- nrow(X); p <- ncol(X)
## stage 1: XtX and Jacobi diagonal preconditioner
XtX <- crossprod(X)
D <- 1 / sqrt(diag(XtX))
## stage 2: pivoted Cholesky factorization
R <- suppressWarnings(chol(t(D * t(D * XtX)), pivot = TRUE))
piv <- attr(R, "pivot")
r <- attr(R, "rank")
if (r < p) {
warning("Model is rank-deficient!")
piv <- piv[1:r]
R <- R[1:r, 1:r]
}
## stage 3: solve linear system for coefficients
D <- D[piv]
b <- D * crossprod(X, y)[piv]
z <- forwardsolve(t(R), b)
RSS <- sum(y * y) - sum(z * z)
sigma <- sqrt(RSS / (n - r))
para <- D * backsolve(R, z)
beta.hat <- rep(NA, p)
beta.hat[piv] <- para
## stage 4: get standard error
Rinv <- backsolve(R, diag(r))
se <- rep(NA, p)
se[piv] <- D * sqrt(rowSums(Rinv * Rinv)) * sigma
## stage 5: t-statistic and p-value
t.statistic <- beta.hat / se
p.value <- 2 * pt(-abs(t.statistic), df = n - r)
## stage 6: construct coefficient summary matrix
coefficients <- matrix(c(beta.hat, se, t.statistic, p.value), ncol = 4L)
colnames(coefficients) <- c("Estimate", "Std. Error", "t value", "Pr(>|t|)")
rownames(coefficients) <- colnames(X)
## stage 7: compute adjusted R.squared
adj.R2 <- 1 - sigma * sigma / var(y)
## return model fitting results
attr(coefficients, "sigma") <- sigma
attr(coefficients, "adj.R2") <- adj.R2
coefficients
}
Here I would offer three examples.
Example 1: full rank linear model
We take R's built-in dataset trees as an example.
# using `lm()`
summary(lm(Height ~ Girth + Volume, trees))
#Coefficients:
# Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) 83.2958 9.0866 9.167 6.33e-10 ***
#Girth -1.8615 1.1567 -1.609 0.1188
#Volume 0.5756 0.2208 2.607 0.0145 *
#---
#Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
#Residual standard error: 5.056 on 28 degrees of freedom
#Multiple R-squared: 0.4123, Adjusted R-squared: 0.3703
#F-statistic: 9.82 on 2 and 28 DF, p-value: 0.0005868
## using `lm.chol()`
lm.chol(Height ~ Girth + Volume, trees)
# Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) 83.2957705 9.0865753 9.166905 6.333488e-10
#Girth -1.8615109 1.1566879 -1.609346 1.187591e-01
#Volume 0.5755946 0.2208225 2.606594 1.449097e-02
#attr(,"sigma")
#[1] 5.056318
#attr(,"adj.R2")
#[1] 0.3702869
The results are exactly the same!
Example 2: rank-deficient linear model
## toy data
set.seed(0)
dat <- data.frame(y = rnorm(100), x1 = runif(100), x2 = rbeta(100,3,5))
dat$x3 <- with(dat, (x1 + x2) / 2)
## using `lm()`
summary(lm(y ~ x1 + x2 + x3, dat))
#Coefficients: (1 not defined because of singularities)
# Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) 0.2164 0.2530 0.856 0.394
#x1 -0.1526 0.3252 -0.469 0.640
#x2 -0.3534 0.5707 -0.619 0.537
#x3 NA NA NA NA
#Residual standard error: 0.8886 on 97 degrees of freedom
#Multiple R-squared: 0.0069, Adjusted R-squared: -0.01358
#F-statistic: 0.337 on 2 and 97 DF, p-value: 0.7147
## using `lm.chol()`
lm.chol(y ~ x1 + x2 + x3, dat)
# Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
#(Intercept) 0.2164455 0.2529576 0.8556595 0.3942949
#x1 NA NA NA NA
#x2 -0.2007894 0.6866871 -0.2924030 0.7706030
#x3 -0.3051760 0.6504256 -0.4691944 0.6399836
#attr(,"sigma")
#[1] 0.8886214
#attr(,"adj.R2")
#[1] -0.01357594
#Warning message:
#In lm.chol(y ~ x1 + x2 + x3, dat) : Model is rank-deficient!
Here, lm.chol() based on Cholesky factorization with complete pivoting and lm() based on QR factorization with partial pivoting have shrunk different coefficients to NA. But two estimation are equivalent, with the same fitted values and residuals.
Example 3: performance for large linear models
n <- 10000; p <- 300
set.seed(0)
dat <- as.data.frame(setNames(replicate(p, rnorm(n), simplify = FALSE), paste0("x",1:p)))
dat$y <- rnorm(n)
## using `lm()`
system.time(lm(y ~ ., dat))
# user system elapsed
# 3.212 0.096 3.315
## using `lm.chol()`
system.time(lm.chol(y ~ ., dat))
# user system elapsed
# 1.024 0.028 1.056
lm.chol() is 3 ~ 4 times faster than lm(). If you want to know the reason, read my this answer.
Remark
I have focused on improving performance on computational kernel. You can take one step further, by using Ben Bolker's parallelism suggestion. If my approach gives 3 times boost, and parallel computing gives 3 times boost on 4 cores, you end up with 9 times boost!
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38601794/fit-many-formulae-at-once-faster-options-than-lapply