Poisson regression model is one of the most frequently used statistical methods as a standard method of data analysis in many fields. Our focus in this paper is on the identification of outliers, we mainly discuss the deviance and Pearson  as diagnostic statistics in identification. Simulation and real data are presented to assess the performance of the diagnostic statistics

Algamal, Zakariya Y

English

ESE - Salento University Publishing

	  Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis EJASA (2012), Electron. J. App. Stat. Anal., Vol. 5, Issue 2, 178 – 186 e-ISSN 2070-5948, DOI 10.1285/i20705948v5n2p176 © 2012 Università del Salento –	  http://siba-ese.unile.it/index.php/ejasa/index  178 DIAGNOSTIC IN POISSON REGRESSION MODELS   Zakariya Y. Algamal*  (1)Department of Statistics and Informatics, Mosul university, Iraq  Received 08 March 2011; Accepted 02 April 2012 Available online 14 October 2012   Abstract: Poisson regression model is one of the most frequently used statistical methods as a standard method of data analysis in many fields. Our focus in this paper is on the identification of outliers, we mainly discuss the deviance and Pearson χ2 as diagnostic statistics in identification. Simulation and real data are presented to assess the performance of the diagnostic statistics.  Keywords: Poisson regression, deviance, Pearson χ2, outliers.   1. Introduction  Poisson regression models have received much attention in econometrics and medicine literature as model for describing count data that assume integer values corresponding to the number of events occurring in a given interval. The Poisson regression model is the most basic model, where the mean of the distribution is a function of the explanatory variables. This model has the defining characteristic that the conditional mean of the outcome is equal to the conditional variance [5]. Outliers are observations that do not follow the statistical distribution of the majority of the data. Outlier detection is a primary step in regression analysis and has attracted enormous attention in the literature over many years including Cook and Weisberg (1982), and Rousseeuw and Leroy (1987). There are a number of different statistics used by statistician to ordinary least squares regression. Leverage in Poisson regression is assessed by the hat values ih . DFBETA  and DFFIT  are helpful for detecting influence in Poisson regression. DFBETA  is calculated by finding the difference in an estimate before and after a particular observation is removed. The same in DFFIT  except the calculating difference will be in predicted values. The deviance plays an important role in assessing the fit of the model and statistical tests for parameters in the model, and also provides one method for calculating residuals that can be used 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  *	  E-mail: zak.sm_stat@yahoo.com Algamal, Z.Y. (2012). Electron. J. App. Stat. Anal., Vol. 5, Issue 2, 178 – 186. 179 for detecting outliers [4]. Guria and Roy (2008) used the deviance for detecting outliers in logistic regression. Our focus in this paper is on the identification of outliers, we mainly discuss the deviance and Pearson χ2 as diagnostic statistics in identification. The structure of the paper is the following. We briefly present in section 2 the estimation of the Poisson regression parameters for both deleted and undeleted observation. In section 3, we introduced the deviance and Pearson χ2 criteria to detect the outliers. Simulation and real data examples are covered in section 4 and 5 respectively. Section 6 shows the conclusion.   2. Background and Notation for the Poisson Regression Models  In Poisson regression model, hereafter PR, the number of events y  has a Poisson distribution with a conditional mean that depends on individual characteristics according to the structural model:  )x(Exp)xy(E iiii βʹ′==θ           (1)  Taking the exponential of βx  forces the expected count µ  to be positive, which is required for the Poisson distribution [5]. If a discrete random variable y  follows the Poisson distribution, then:  ,....2,1,0y,!ye)yY(py=θ==θ−         (2)  In order to estimate the PR estimator, we use the maximum likelihood estimation. By taking the log-likelihood with )x(Exp ii βʹ′=θ , we get:  ∑=β==βn1iiiin21n21 )x,yY(plog)x,...,x,x,y,......,y,y(Llog     (3)  { }∑=−βʹ′+βʹ′−=βn1iiiii )!ylog()x(y)x(Exp)(Llog        (4)  The maximum likelihood estimator is then defined as:  )(LlogmaxargˆML β=β β           (5)  So, the maximizing value for β  is found by computing the first derivative of the (4) and setting it equal to zero:  Diagnostic in Poisson Regression Models 180 [ ] 0x)x(Expy)(Llog in1iii =βʹ′−=β∂β∂∑=        (6)  The second derivatives, Hessian matrix, is given below:  iin1ii2xx)x(Exp)(Llog ʹ′βʹ′−=βʹ′∂β∂β∂∑=         (7)  Since the equation (6) is nonlinear in β , one must use an iterative algorithm. A common choice that work well is the Newton-Raphson method as:  ML(m+1)β = ML(m)β − ( (m)H )−1 (m)S           (8)  Where S is the first derivative of the log-likelihood [10],[11]. To see the influence of the deletion of the kth observation on the PR, we consider the log-likelihood function as following:   { }∑≠=−βʹ′+βʹ′−=βnk,1iiiiik )!ylog()x(y)x(Exp)(Llog        (9)   then  [ ] ink,1iii)k( x)x(ExpyS ∑≠=βʹ′−=          (10)  xx)x(Exp ink,1ii)k(H ʹ′βʹ′−= ∑≠=          (11) Starting with an initial solution then the Newton-Raphson become:  SH )k(1)k()k)(m(ML)k)(1m(ML)( −+−=ββ          (12)   3. Single Case Deletion Diagnostic   To show the amount of change in PR estimates that would occurred if the kth observation is deleted. Two diagnostic statistics are proposed, change in deviance and change in Pearson χ2 to detect the outliers. Such diagnostic statistics are one that examine the effected of deleting single case on the overall summary measures of fit. Let χ2p  denotes the Pearson χ2 statistics and χ )k(2p  denotes the statistic after the case k is deleted. Using one-step linear approximations given by Algamal, Z.Y. (2012). Electron. J. App. Stat. Anal., Vol. 5, Issue 2, 178 – 186. 181 Pregibon (1981) [7] , it can be shown that the decrease in the value of the χ2p  statistic due to deletion of the kth case is:  n,.....,3,2,1k,)k(2p2p)k(2p =−=Δ χχχ −        (13)  The χ2p  is defined as [6]:  )ˆvar(/))x(Expy( 2n1iii2pµβʹ′−=∑χ=         (14)  And the χ2p  for the thk  deleted case is:  )ˆvar(/))x(Expy( 2nk,1iii)k(2pµβʹ′−= ∑χ≠=−         (15)  The one-step linear approximation for change in deviance when the kth case is deleted is:  )k()k( DDD −−=Δ            (16)  Because the deviance is used to measure the goodness of fit of a model, a substantial decrease in the deviance after the deletion of the kth observation is indicate that is observation is a misfit. The deviance of the PR model with and without the kth observation is respectively [4]:  )}ˆy()ˆy(logy{2D iin1i iii µ−−µ= ∑=         (17)  where )ˆx(Expˆ ii βʹ′=µ :  )}ˆy()ˆy(logy{2D )k(iink,1i)k(iii)k( −≠=−µ−−µ= ∑        (18)  A large value of )k(DΔ  indicates that the kth observation is an outlier.    4.  Simulation Study Results  Diagnostic in Poisson Regression Models 182 A simulation study was conducted to investigate the behavior of the deviance and chi-square Pearson diagnostic statistics under various modeling scenarios. We considered data simulated from a PR with sample size n and p explanatory variables for the cases (n,p)=(10,1),(25,2) and (50,2). The first case represents a simple PR with X following uniform [0,1] distribution and β=(0,1). The second and third case represent a multiple PR with 21 xandx  have uniform [0,1] distribution and β=(0,1). The percentage of contamination was set to be 10%, 4% and 4% respectively in order to make one or two observations from the response variable sever from shift-mean outlier (the 10th observation from the first case, the 25th observation from the second case, and observations 29 and 48 from the third case). For brevity, the )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  are presented only in summary in table 1 for the first case, while the rest case results are shown in figure 2 and figure 3.  Table 1. The )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  statistics for case one. Observation )k(DΔ  χΔ )k(2p  1 0.1407 0.1323 2 0.687 0.5736 3 0.8742 0.7124 4 0.0044 0.0044 5 4.032 2.212 6 1.8051 1.466 7 3.912 2.2017 8 0.1007 0.0953 9 0.38001 0.4014 10 18.642 31.386   Figure 1. )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  for the first case.  	  Algamal, Z.Y. (2012). Electron. J. App. Stat. Anal., Vol. 5, Issue 2, 178 – 186. 183 The deviance for the full model was (25.37). The 10th observation will be outlier since it has 642.18D )k( =Δ  and 386.31)k(2p =Δχ . Figure 1 shows the )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  for this case.	  	  	  Figure 2. )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  for the second case.  From figure (2) we can conclude that the observation 25 will be outlier since its deletion will decrease the deviance and Pearson χ2 by (10.3) and (13.4). Again from figure (3), we can considered observations 29 and 48 are outliers since they have large DΔ  and χΔ 2p  among the rest of the observations.   Diagnostic in Poisson Regression Models 184  Figure 3. )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  for the third case.  5. Numerical Results  The performance of the delta deviance and delta Pearson χ2 diagnostic statistics was studied in a real data example. Andersen (2008) [1] described data for Canadian Equality, Security, and Community Survey of 2000. He used only Quebec respondents in the analysis where (n=949). The response variable is the number of voluntary associations to which respondents belonged. The explanatory variables are gender (with women as the reference category), Canadian born (the reference category is "not born in Canada"), and language spoken in the home (divided into English, French, and other, with French coded as the reference category). He used Cook's distance which indicates that there are two observations (31 and 786) may be particularly problematic. Also, he pointed that the analysis of the DFBETA  indicates that the influence of these two observations is largely with respect to the effect of Canadian born variable. To assess our diagnostic statistics performance, we used this example. Table (2) shows the )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  only for the two observations (31 and 949), where the full model deviance is 2427.632. Figure 4 shows the overall look about our analysis.  Table 2. The )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  for the real data. Observation )k(DΔ  χΔ )k(2p  31 28.00042 63.5904 786 20.813 43.595  	   	  Algamal, Z.Y. (2012). Electron. J. App. Stat. Anal., Vol. 5, Issue 2, 178 – 186. 185 	  Figure 4. )k(DΔ  and χΔ )k(2p  for the real data. 	  6. Conclusion  All of the diagnostic statistics described in this paper use one-step approximations to measure the effect of single case deletion on the Poisson regression model parameters. As we can see from figure 1 that the observation 10 considered outlier by our diagnostics statistics and this corresponds the fact that case 10 has already sever from shifting in mean comparing with the rest observations. The same with observation 25 from figure 2 and observations 29 and 48 from figure 3.  As mentioned in section 5 and from figure 4, the observations 31 and 786 considered outliers using delta deviance and delta Pearson χ2 diagnostic statistics, this is the same decision that made by Andersen (2008) using DFBETA . It should be noted here that the DFFIT pointed out that the observation 31 has the value 0.0114 which is less than the traditional cut-off value 0.129 and that the observation 786 has the value 0.312 which is greater than the traditional cut-off value. Here we could conclude that our diagnostic statistics well done in identifying outliers.   References   [1]. Andersen, R. (2008). Modern methods for robust regression. New York: SAGE Publication.  [2]. Cook, R. D. and Weisberg, S. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression.  New York: Chapman & Hall.   [3]. Guria, S. and Roy, S. S.  (2008). Diagnostics in logistic regression models.  Journal of the Korean Statistical Society, 37, 89-94.  	  Diagnostic in Poisson Regression Models 186 [4]. Jong, P. and Heller, G. Z. (2009). Generalized linear models for insurance data. London: Cambridge University Press. [5]. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.  New York: SAGE Publication. [6]. McCullagh, P. and Nelder, J.A. (1989). Generalized linear models.   2nd ed. London: Chapman & Hall. [7]. Pregibon, D. (1981).  Logistic regression diagnostics.  The Annals of Statistics, 9, 4, 705-724. [8]. Rousseeuw, P. J. and Leroy, A. M. (1987). Robust regression and outliers detection.  New York: John Wiley. [9]. Seber, G. A. F. and Lee, A. J. (2003). Linear regression analysis.  2nd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley. [10]. Winkelmann, R. (2008).  Econometric analysis of count data.  5th ed. Leipzing:  Springer. [11]. Yan, X. and Su, X. G. (2009). Linear regression analysis, theory and computing. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.                               This paper is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribuzione - Non commerciale - Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia License. 

Diagnostic in Poisson Regression Models

Università del Salento: ESE - Salento University Publishing

http://siba-ese.unile.it/index.php/ejasa/article/download/11309/11050

Diagnostic in Poisson Regression Models

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ESE - Salento University Publishing

Università del Salento: ESE - Salento University Publishing