gam.models               package:mgcv               R Documentation

_S_p_e_c_i_f_y_i_n_g _g_e_n_e_r_a_l_i_z_e_d _a_d_d_i_t_i_v_e _m_o_d_e_l_s

_D_e_s_c_r_i_p_t_i_o_n:

     This page is intended to provide some more information on how to
     specify GAMs. A GAM is a GLM in which the linear predictor
     depends,  in part, on a sum of smooth functions of predictors and
     (possibly) linear  functionals of smooth functions of (possibly
     dummy) predictors.

     Specifically let y_i denote an independent random variable  with
     mean mu_i and an exponential family distribution, or failing  that
     a known mean variance relationship suitable for use of
     quasi-likelihood methods.  Then the the linear predictor of a GAM
     has a structure something like


   g(mu_i)=X_i b + f_1(x_1i,x_2i) + f_2(x_3i) + L_i f_3(x_4) + ...


     where g is a known smooth monotonic `link' function, X_i b  is the
     parametric part of the linear predictor, the x_j are predictor
     variables, the f_j are smooth functions and L_i is some linear
     functional of  f_3. There may of course be multiple linear
     functional terms, or none.

     The key idea here is that the dependence of the response on the
     predictors can be represented as a parametric sub-model plus the
     sum of some (functionals of) smooth functions of one or more of
     the predictor variables. Thus the model is quite flexible relative
     to strictly parametric linear or generalized linear models, but
     still has much more structure than the completely general model
     that says that the response is just some smooth function of all
     the covariates.

     Note one important point. In order for the model to be
     identifiable the smooth functions usually have to be constrained
     to have zero mean (usually taken over the set of covariate
     values). The constraint is needed if the term involving the 
     smooth includes a constant function in its span. 'gam' always
     applies such constraints  unless there is a 'by' variable present,
     in which case an assessment is made of whether  the constraint is
     needed or not (see below).

     The following sections discuss specifying model structures for
     'gam'.  Specification of the distribution and link function is
     done using the 'family'  argument to 'gam' and works in the same
     way as for 'glm'.  This page therefore concentrates on the model
     formula for 'gam'.

_M_o_d_e_l_s _w_i_t_h _s_i_m_p_l_e _s_m_o_o_t_h _t_e_r_m_s:

     Consider the example model.

    g(mu_i) = b_0 + b_1 x_1i + b_2 x_2i + f1(x_3i) + f2(x_4i,x_5i)

     where the response variables y_i has expectation mu_i and g is a
     link function.

     The 'gam' formula for this would be 
      'y ~ x1 + x2 + s(x3) + s(x4,x5)'. 
      This would use the default basis for the smooths (a thin plate
     regression spline basis for each), with automatic selection of the
     effective degrees of freedom for both smooths. The dimension of
     the smoothing basis is given a default value as well (the
     dimension of the basis sets an upper limit on the maximum possible
     degrees of freedom for the basis - the limit is typically one less
     than basis dimension). Full details of how to control smooths are
     given in 's' and 'te', and further discussion of basis dimension
     choice can be found in 'choose.k'.  For the moment suppose that we
     would like to change the basis of the first smooth to a cubic
     regression spline basis with a dimension of 20, while fixing the
     second term at 25 degrees of freedom. The appropriate formula
     would be:
      'y ~ x1 + x2 + s(x3,bs="cr",k=20) + s(x4,x5,k=26,fx=TRUE)'.

     The above assumes that x_4 and x_5 are naturally on  similar
     scales (e.g. they might be co-ordinates), so that isotropic
     smoothing  is appropriate. If this assumption is false then tensor
     product smoothing might be  better (see 'te'). 
      'y ~ x1 + x2 + s(x3) + te(x4,x5)'
      would generate a tensor product smooth of x_4 and x_5.  By
     default this smooth would have basis dimension 25 and use cubic
     regression spline marginals.  Varying the defaults is easy. For
     example
      'y ~ x1 + x2 + s(x3) + te(x4,x5,bs=c("cr","ps"),k=c(6,7))'
      specifies that the tensor product should use a rank 6 cubic
     regression spline marginal and a rank 7 P-spline marginal to
     create a smooth with basis dimension 42.

_N_e_s_t_e_d _t_e_r_m_s:

     Another common modelling task is to decide if a model like:

                             E(y)=f(x,z)

     is really necessary or whether:

                           E(y)=f1(x)+f2(z)

     would do just as well. One possibility is to examine the results
     of fitting:
      'y ~ s(x) + s(z) + s(x,z)'.
      'gam' automatically generates side conditions to make this model
     identifiable. You can also estimate `overlapping' models like:
      'y ~ s(x,z) + s(z,v)'.

'_b_y' _v_a_r_i_a_b_l_e_s:

     'by' variables are the means for constructing `varying-coefficient
     models' (geographic regression models) and  for letting smooths
     `interact' with factors or parametric terms. They are also the key
     to specifying general linear  functionals of smooths.

     The 's' and 'te' terms used to specify smooths accept an argument
     'by',  which is a numeric or factor variable of the same dimension
     as the covariates of the smooth.  If a 'by' variable is numeric,
     then its ith element multiples the  ith row of the model matrix
     corresponding to the smooth term concerned. If a 'by' variable is
     a factor then it generates  an indicator vector for each level of
     the factor. The model matrix for the smooth term is then
     replicated for each factor level, and each copy has its rows
     multiplied by the corresponding rows of its indicator variable.
     The smoothness penalties are also duplicated for each factor
     level.  In short a different smooth is generated for each factor
     level (the 'id' argument to 's' and 'te' can be used to force all 
     such smooths to have the same smoothing parameter). 

     As an example, consider the model

                       E(y_i) = b_0 + f(x_i)z_i

     where f is a smooth function, and z_i is a numeric variable. The
     appropriate formula is:
      'y ~ s(x,by=z)'
      - the 'by' argument ensures that the smooth function gets
     multiplied by covariate 'z'. Note that when using factor
     variables, then the presence of centering constraints usually
     means that the by variable should be included as a parametric
     term, as well.

     The example code below also illustrates the use of factor 'by'
     variables.

     'by' variables may be supplied as numeric matrices as part of
     specifying general linear functional terms.

     If a 'by' variable is present and numeric (rather than a factor)
     then the corresponding smooth is only subjected  to an
     identifiability constraint if (i) the 'by' variable is a constant
     vector, or, (ii) for a matrix  'by' variable, 'L', if
     'L%*%rep(1,ncol(L))' is constant or (iii) if a user defined smooth
     constructor  supplies an identifiability constraint explicitly.

_L_i_n_k_i_n_g _s_m_o_o_t_h_s _w_i_t_h '_i_d':

     It is sometimes desirable to insist that different smooth terms
     have the same degree of smoothness.  This can be done by using the
     'id' argument to 's' or 'te' terms. Smooths  which share an 'id'
     will have the same smoothing parameter. Really this only makes
     sense if the  smooths use the same basis functions, and the
     default behaviour is to force this to happen: all smooths  sharing
     an 'id' have the same basis functions as the first smooth
     occurring with that 'id'. Note  that if you want exactly the same
     function for each smooth, then this is best achieved by making use
     of the  summation convention covered under `linear functional
     terms'. 

     As an example suppose that E(y_i)=mu_i and 

            g(mu_i) = f1(x_1i) + f2(x_2i,x_3i) + f3(x_4i)

     but that f1 and f3 should have the same smoothing parameters (and
     x_2 and x_3 are on different scales). Then  the 'gam' formula
      'y ~ s(x1,id=1) + te(x_2,x3) + s(x4,id=1)'
      would achieve the desired result. 'id' can be numbers or
     character strings. Giving an 'id' to a  term with a factor 'by'
     variable causes the smooths at each level of the factor to have
     the same smoothing  parameter.

     Smooth term 'id's are not supported by 'gamm'.

_L_i_n_e_a_r _f_u_n_c_t_i_o_n_a_l _t_e_r_m_s:

     General linear functional terms have a long history in the spline
     literature including in the penalized  GLM context (see e.g. Wahba
     1990). Such terms encompass varying coefficient models/ geographic
      regression, functional GLMs (i.e. GLMs with functional
     predictors), GLASS models, etc, and allow  smoothing with respect
     to aggregated covariate values, for example. 

     Such terms are implemented in 'mgcv' using a simple `summation
     convention' for smooth terms: If the covariates of a  smooth are
     supplied as matrices, then summation of the evaluated smooth over
     the columns of the matrices is implied. Each  covariate matrix and
     any 'by' variable matrix must be of the same dimension. Consider,
     for example the term
      's(X,Z,by=L)'
      where 'X', 'Z' and 'L' are n by p matrices. Let f denote the thin
     plate regression  spline specified. The resulting contibution to
     the ith  element of the linear predictor is 

                      sum_j^p L_ij f(X_ij,Z_ij)

     If no 'L' is supplied then all its elements are taken as 1. In R
     code terms, let 'F' denote the n by p  matrix obtained by
     evaluating the smooth at the values in 'X' and 'Z'. Then the
     contribution of the term to the  linear predictor is
     'rowSums(L*F)' (note that it's element by element multiplication
     here!). 

     The summation convention applies to 'te' terms as well as 's'
     terms. More details and examples  are provided in 
     'linear.functional.terms'.

_P_e_n_a_l_i_z_i_n_g _t_h_e _p_a_r_a_m_e_t_r_i_c _t_e_r_m_s:

     In case the ability to add smooth classes, smooth identities, 'by'
     variables and the summation convention are  still not sufficient
     to implement exactly the penalized GLM that you require, 'gam'
     also allows you to penalize the  parametric terms in the model
     formula. This is mostly useful in  allowing one or more matrix
     terms to be included in the formula, along with a  sequence of
     quadratic penalty matrices for each. 

     Suppose that you have set up a model matrix X, and want to
     penalize the corresponding coefficients, b with two penalties b'S1
     b and b'S2 b.  Then something like the  following would be
     appropriate:
      'gam(y ~ X - 1,paraPen=list(X=list(S1,S1)))'
      The 'paraPen' argument should be a list with elements having 
     names corresponding to the terms being penalized.  Each element of
     'paraPen' is itself a list, with optional elements 'L', 'rank' and
     'sp': all other elements  must be penalty matrices. If present,
     'rank' is a vector giving the rank of each penalty matrix  (if
     absent this is determined numerically). 'L' is a matrix that maps
     underlying log smoothing parameters to the  log smoothing
     parameters that actually multiply the individual quadratic
     penalties: taken as the identity if not supplied. 'sp' is a vector
     of (underlying) smoothing parameter values: positive values are
     taken as fixed, negative to signal that  the smoothing parameter
     should be estimated. Taken as all negative if not supplied.

     An obvious application of 'paraPen' is to incorporate random
     effects, and an example of this is provided below.

_A_u_t_h_o_r(_s):

     Simon N. Wood simon.wood@r-project.org

_R_e_f_e_r_e_n_c_e_s:

     Wahba (1990) Spline Models of Observational Data SIAM.

     Wood S.N. (2006) Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with
     R. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.

_E_x_a_m_p_l_e_s:

     set.seed(10)
     ## simulate date from y = f(x2)*x1 + error
     dat <- gamSim(3,n=400)

     b<-gam(y ~ s(x2,by=x1),data=dat)
     plot(b,pages=1)
     summary(b)

     ## Factor `by' variable example (with a spurious covariate x0)
     ## simulate data...

     dat <- gamSim(4)

     ## fit model...
     b <- gam(y ~ fac+s(x2,by=fac)+s(x0),data=dat)
     plot(b,pages=1)
     summary(b)

     ## note that the preceding fit is the same as....
     b1<-gam(y ~ s(x2,by=as.numeric(fac==1))+s(x2,by=as.numeric(fac==2))+
                 s(x2,by=as.numeric(fac==3))+s(x0)-1,data=dat)
     ## ... the `-1' is because the intercept is confounded with the 
     ## *uncentred* smooths here.
     plot(b1,pages=1)
     summary(b1)

     ## repeat, but force all the s(x2) terms to have the same smoothing param
     ## (not a very good idea for these data!)
     b2 <- gam(y ~ fac+s(x2,by=fac,id=1)+s(x0),data=dat)
     plot(b2,pages=1)
     summary(b2)

     rm(dat)

     ## An example of a simple random effects term implemented via 
     ## penalization of the parametric part of the model...

     dat <- gamSim(1,n=400,scale=2) ## simulate 4 term additive truth
     ## Now add some random effects to the simulation. Response is 
     ## grouped into one of 20 groups by `fac' and each groups has a
     ## random effect added....
     fac <- as.factor(sample(1:20,400,replace=TRUE))
     dat$X <- model.matrix(~fac-1)
     b <- rnorm(20)*.5
     dat$y <- dat$y + dat$X%*%b

     ## now fit appropriate random effect model...
     PP <- list(X=list(rank=20,diag(20)))
     rm <- gam(y~ X+s(x0)+s(x1)+s(x2)+s(x3),data=dat,paraPen=PP)
     plot(rm,pages=1)
     ## Get estimated random effects standard deviation...
     sig.b <- sqrt(rm$sig2/rm$sp[1]);sig.b 

