And finally, the local variance of the errors increases steadily over time. The reason for this is that random variations in auto sales like most other measures of macroeconomic activity tend to be consistent over time in percentage terms rather than absolute terms, and the absolute level of the series has risen dramatically due to a combination of inflationary growth and real growth. As the level as grown, the variance of the random fluctuations has grown with it.
Confidence intervals for forecasts in the near future will therefore be way too narrow, being based on average error sizes over the whole history of the series. So, despite the high value of R-squared, this is a very bad model. One way to try to improve the model would be to deflate both series first. This would at least eliminate the inflationary component of growth, which hopefully will make the variance of the errors more consistent over time.
Here is a time series plot showing auto sales and personal income after they have been deflated by dividing them by the U. This does indeed flatten out the trend somewhat, and it also brings out some fine detail in the month-to-month variations that was not so apparent on the original plot. In particular, we begin to see some small bumps and wiggles in the income data that roughly line up with larger bumps and wiggles in the auto sales data.
If we fit a simple regression model to these two variables, the following results are obtained:. Adjusted R-squared is only 0. Well, no. Because the dependent variables are not the same, it is not appropriate to do a head-to-head comparison of R-squared. Arguably this is a better model, because it separates out the real growth in sales from the inflationary growth, and also because the errors have a more consistent variance over time.
The latter issue is not the bottom line, but it is a step in the direction of fixing the model assumptions. Most interestingly, the deflated income data shows some fine detail that matches up with similar patterns in the sales data. However, the error variance is still a long way from being constant over the full two-and-a-half decades, and the problems of badly autocorrelated errors and a particularly bad fit to the most recent data have not been solved. Another statistic that we might be tempted to compare between these two models is the standard error of the regression, which normally is the best bottom-line statistic to focus on.
But wait… these two numbers cannot be directly compared, either, because they are not measured in the same units. The standard error of the first model is measured in units of current dollar s, while the standard error of the second model is measured in units of dollar s.
Those were decades of high inflation, and dollars were not worth nearly as much as dollars were worth in the earlier years. In fact, a dollar was only worth about one-quarter of a dollar. The slope coefficients in the two models are also of interest. Because the units of the dependent and independent variables are the same in each model current dollars in the first model, dollars in the second model , the slope coefficient can be interpreted as the predicted increase in dollars spent on autos per dollar of increase in income.
The slope coefficients in the two models are nearly identical: 0. Notice that we are now 3 levels deep in data transformations: seasonal adjustment, deflation, and differencing! This sort of situation is very common in time series analysis. This model merely predicts that each monthly difference will be the same, i. Adjusted R-squared has dropped to zero! We should look instead at the standard error of the regression.
The units and sample of the dependent variable are the same for this model as for the previous one, so their regression standard errors can be legitimately compared. The sample size for the second model is actually 1 less than that of the first model due to the lack of period-zero value for computing a period-1 difference, but this is insignificant in such a large data set. The regression standard error of this model is only 2.
The residual-vs-time plot for this model and the previous one have the same vertical scaling: look at them both and compare the size of the errors, particularly those that have occurred recently. It is often the case that the best information about where a time series is going to go next is where it has been lately. There is no line fit plot for this model, because there is no independent variable, but here is the residual-versus-time plot:.
These residuals look quite random to the naked eye, but they actually exhibit negative autocorrelation , i. The lag-1 autocorrelation here is This often happens when differenced data is used, but overall the errors of this model are much closer to being independently and identically distributed than those of the previous two, so we can have a good deal more confidence in any confidence intervals for forecasts that may be computed from it.
Of course, this model does not shed light on the relationship between personal income and auto sales. So, what is the relationship between auto sales and personal income?
That is a complex question and it will not be further pursued here except to note that there some other simple things we could do besides fitting a regression model. For example, we could compute the percentage of income spent on automobiles over time , i. Here is the resulting picture:. This chart nicely illustrates cyclical variations in the fraction of income spent on autos, which would be interesting to try to match up with other explanatory variables.
However, this chart re-emphasizes what was seen in the residual-vs-time charts for the simple regression models: the fraction of income spent on autos is not consistent over time. The bottom line here is that R-squared was not of any use in guiding us through this particular analysis toward better and better models. At various stages of the analysis, data transformations were suggested: seasonal adjustment, deflating, differencing.
Logging was not tried here, but would have been an alternative to deflation. And every time the dependent variable is transformed, it becomes impossible to make meaningful before-and-after comparisons of R-squared.
Furthermore, regression was probably not even the best tool to use here in order to study the relation between the two variables. So, what IS a good value for R-squared? It depends on the variable with respect to which you measure it, it depends on the units in which that variable is measured and whether any data transformations have been applied, and it depends on the decision-making context.
In scholarly research that focuses on marketing issues, R2 values of 0. An R2 of 1. Any R2 value less than 1. Why is R-Squared always between 0—1? This means that we can easily compare between different models, and decide which one better explains variance from the mean. Bottom line: R2 can be greater than 1. The negative R-squared value means that your prediction tends to be less accurate that the average value of the data set over time.
A low R-squared value indicates that your independent variable is not explaining much in the variation of your dependent variable — regardless of the variable significance, this is letting you know that the identified independent variable, even though significant, is not accounting for much of the mean of your ….
The most common interpretation of r-squared is how well the regression model fits the observed data. Generally, a higher r-squared indicates a better fit for the model. The low R-squared graph shows that even noisy, high-variability data can have a significant trend.
The trend indicates that the predictor variable still provides information about the response even though data points fall further from the regression line. Narrower intervals indicate more precise predictions. Compared to a model with additional input variables, a lower adjusted R-squared indicates that the additional input variables are not adding value to the model.
Compared to a model with additional input variables, a higher adjusted R-squared indicates that the additional input variables are adding value to the model. There is no one-size fits all best answer for how high R-squared should be. Adding more independent variables or predictors to a regression model tends to increase the R-squared value, which tempts makers of the model to add even more. Adjusted R-squared is used to determine how reliable the correlation is and how much is determined by the addition of independent variables.
The adjusted R-squared is a modified version of R-squared that has been adjusted for the number of predictors in the model. The adjusted R-squared increases only if the new term improves the model more than would be expected by chance.
It decreases when a predictor improves the model by less than expected by chance. The formula for adjusted R square allows it to be negative. It is intended to approximate the actual percentage variance explained. So if the actual R square is close to zero the adjusted R square can be slightly negative. Just think of it as an estimate of zero. For instance, low R-squared values are not always bad and high R-squared values are not always good!
Linear regression calculates an equation that minimizes the distance between the fitted line and all of the data points. Technically, ordinary least squares OLS regression minimizes the sum of the squared residuals. In general, a model fits the data well if the differences between the observed values and the model's predicted values are small and unbiased.
Before you look at the statistical measures for goodness-of-fit, you should check the residual plots. Residual plots can reveal unwanted residual patterns that indicate biased results more effectively than numbers. When your residual plots pass muster, you can trust your numerical results and check the goodness-of-fit statistics. R-squared is a statistical measure of how close the data are to the fitted regression line.
It is also known as the coefficient of determination, or the coefficient of multiple determination for multiple regression. The definition of R-squared is fairly straight-forward; it is the percentage of the response variable variation that is explained by a linear model.
In general, the higher the R-squared, the better the model fits your data. Plotting fitted values by observed values graphically illustrates different R-squared values for regression models. The regression model on the left accounts for The more variance that is accounted for by the regression model the closer the data points will fall to the fitted regression line. R-squared cannot determine whether the coefficient estimates and predictions are biased, which is why you must assess the residual plots.
R-squared does not indicate whether a regression model is adequate. You can have a low R-squared value for a good model, or a high R-squared value for a model that does not fit the data!
The R-squared in your output is a biased estimate of the population R-squared.
0コメント