In the mixpoissonreg package the following global influence methods are implemented: hatvalues
, cooks.distance
and influence
. Below, we discuss the implementations of these methods in detail. Notice that in this vignette we do not provide interpretations of the influence results, we focus on how to compute the measures. For interpretations of the influence measures we refer the reader to the Analyzing overdispersed count data with the mixpoissonreg package vignette. We also do not provide examples on customization of the plots since virtually all the arguments related to the customization of plots for the local_influence_plot
and local_influence_autoplot
methods are the same as their counterparts plot
and autoplot
, respectivelly. Therefore, we refer the reader to the Building and customizing base-R diagnostic plots with the mixpoissonreg package and Building and customizing ggplot2-based diagnostic plots with the mixpoissonreg package for examples on how to customize the plots (change point and line types, colors, sizes, as well as change titles, captions, colors, etc.).
hatvalues
methodTo define “hat values” for mixed Poisson regression models, we follow Zhu et al. (2001) to consider the negative of the hessian of the Q-function as weight matrix, and follow Pregibon (1981) to define the “hat” matrix with respect to this weight matrix. We can consider the hessian of the Q-function with respect to mean-related parameters, which is the default. We can also consider the hessian of the Q-function with respect to the precision-related parameters to give rise to hat values related to the precision parameters.
To obtain the mean-related hat values one simply calls the hatvalues
method:
library(mixpoissonreg)
<- mixpoissonreg(daysabs ~ gender + math + prog | gender + math + prog,
fit data = Attendance, em_controls = list(maxit=1))
head(hatvalues(fit))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.009079739 0.006988289 0.004624420 0.006642726 0.009645113 0.026264887
We are using the option em_controls = list(maxit=1)
to reduce computational cost.
The hat values are used to obtain Cook’s distance. One can also use the hat values to define leverage-adjusted residuals by dividing the residuals by sqrt(hatvalues(fitted_object))
.
To obtain precision-related hat values one must set parameters
to “precision”:
head(hatvalues(fit, parameters = "precision"))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.003308847 0.004137405 0.015968674 0.012503519 0.020321253 0.007444494
cooks.distance
methodThe implementation of the cooks.distance
method for mixpoissonreg
models contains several “Cook’s distance”-like measures. More precisely, it contains the standard Cook’s distance, the generalized Cook’s distance, the likelihood displacement and the Q-displacement.
The implementation of the standard Cook’s distance uses the usual formula for Cook’s distance in terms of the “hat” matrix, where the “hat” matrix is the one given above. The standard Cook’s distance returned by default in the cooks.distance
method. So, to obtain Cook’s distance, we simply call the cooks.distance
method:
head(cooks.distance(fit))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 7.412521e-05 1.938596e-04 6.180137e-04 6.839692e-04 1.170998e-03 5.061764e-03
Since there is also a “hat” matrix with respect to the precision parameters, we may compute Cook’s distance using the hat values with respect to the precision parameters. To compute Cook’s distance with the “hat” matrix with respect to the precision parameters we simply set the hat
argument to “precision”:
head(cooks.distance(fit, hat = "precision"))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 2.670088e-05 1.141181e-04 2.183563e-03 1.302754e-03 2.521237e-03 1.380809e-03
The Generalized Cook’s distance and Q-displacement (also called Q-distance) for EM-based models were defined in Zhu et al. (2001) and computed for mixed Poisson regression models in Barreto-Souza and Simas (2016). We implemented first-order approximation to these quantities to make it computationally feasible. These first-order approximations are available in Barreto-Souza and Simas (2016). We also provide versions of generalized Cook’s distance for mean-related or precision-related parameters, whose details can be found in Barreto-Souza and Simas (2016).
To compute the generalized Cook’s distance with respect to the mean and precision parameters jointly, simply set the type
argument to “GCD”:
head(cooks.distance(fit, type = "GCD"))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.004246929 0.002821274 0.002072301 0.001018638 0.001979334 0.003445122
To compute the generalized Cook’s distance with respect to the mean-related parameters, set the type
argument to “GCDmean”:
head(cooks.distance(fit, type = "GCDmean"))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 6.176462e-05 1.885868e-04 1.180570e-03 1.009909e-03 1.806187e-03 1.660843e-03
and to compute the generalized Cook’s distance with respect to the precision-related parameters, set the type
argument to “GCDprecision”:
head(cooks.distance(fit, type = "GCDprecision"))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 4.185164e-03 2.632687e-03 8.917309e-04 8.728862e-06 1.731461e-04 1.784279e-03
To compute the Q-displacement one sets the type
argument to “QD”:
head(cooks.distance(fit, type = "QD"))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.004223071 0.002777084 0.002040897 0.001022165 0.001969990 0.003508785
The likelihood displacement (also called likelihood distance) was defined in Cook and Weisberg (1982). To compute this measure, one simply set the type
argument to “LD”:
head(cooks.distance(fit, type = "LD"))
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.0019140235 0.0013801409 0.0006543277 0.0001519963 0.0003607121 0.0012554162
influence
methodThe influence
method returns a list
with several quantities:
and if the argument do.coef
is TRUE
the returned list
also contains:
For the two elements above, the ith row corresponds to the parameter estimates with the ith observation removed.
The influence
method has only one argument, do.coef
, which, by default, is set to TRUE
since its computation is not computationally intensive.
Let us call this method on the fit
object:
<- influence(fit)
influence_fit
head(influence_fit$coefficients.mean)
#> (Intercept) gendermale math progAcademic progVocational
#> 1 2.745887 -0.2448940 -0.006613360 -0.4258482 -1.269851
#> 2 2.746077 -0.2447048 -0.006619964 -0.4257226 -1.269747
#> 3 2.747010 -0.2459932 -0.006631644 -0.4252007 -1.269402
#> 4 2.747015 -0.2459013 -0.006632624 -0.4252938 -1.269393
#> 5 2.747544 -0.2460342 -0.006644830 -0.4252217 -1.269154
#> 6 2.746786 -0.2443429 -0.006641383 -0.4268347 -1.269387
The main global influence plots are implemented in the plot
and autoplot
methods. They are the plots number 3, 4 and 5, which are, respectively, the Cook’s distance plot, the generalized Cook’s distance plot and Cook’s distance vs generalized Cook’s distance. The plot
and autoplot
methods provide the same plots, the difference between them being that the former uses R’s base graphics whereas the latter uses the ggplot2
package.
Let us build these plots:
plot(fit, which = c(3,4,5))
and
autoplot(fit, which = c(3,4,5))
These plots identify the most extreme points. By the default they identify 3 points, but the number of identified points can be changed by setting the id.n
argument to the desired value for the plot
method and by setting the label.n
argument to the desired value for the autoplot
method:
plot(fit, which = c(3,4,5), id.n = 5)
and
autoplot(fit, which = c(3,4,5), label.n = 5)
For further details customizing plots of mixpoissonreg
objects, we refer the reader to the Building and customizing base-R diagnostic plots with the mixpoissonreg package and Building and customizing ggplot2-based diagnostic plots with the mixpoissonreg package vignettes.
We now turn to the problem of plotting Q-displacements and likelihood displacements. Both of these plots can easily be built “by hand”.
R’s base graphics:
<- cooks.distance(fit, type = "QD")
qd_fit
# Get the extreme points:
<- as.vector(Rfast::nth(abs(qd_fit), k = 5,
extreme_points num.of.nths = 5,
index.return = TRUE, descending = TRUE))
<- qd_fit[extreme_points]
idx_y
<- range(qd_fit, na.rm = TRUE)
ylim
<- extendrange(r = ylim, f = 0.15)
ylim
plot(qd_fit, xlab = "Obs. number", ylab = "Q-displacement", ylim = ylim, type = "h")
text(extreme_points, idx_y, labels = extreme_points, pos = 3, offset = 0.2)
and
<- cooks.distance(fit, type = "LD")
ld_fit
# Get 5 most extreme points:
<- as.vector(Rfast::nth(abs(ld_fit), k = 5,
extreme_points num.of.nths = 5,
index.return = TRUE, descending = TRUE))
<- ld_fit[extreme_points]
idx_y
<- range(ld_fit, na.rm = TRUE)
ylim
<- extendrange(r = ylim, f = 0.15)
ylim
plot(ld_fit, xlab = "Obs. number", ylab = "Likelihood displacement", ylim = ylim, type = "h")
text(extreme_points, idx_y, labels = extreme_points, pos = 3, offset = 0.2)
Now the ggplot2
version:
library(dplyr)
library(ggplot2)
library(ggrepel)
<- cooks.distance(fit, type = "QD")
qd_fit
<- tibble("Q-displacement" = qd_fit, "Obs. number" = 1:length(qd_fit))
qd_tbl
# Get 5 most extreme points
<- arrange(qd_tbl, desc(`Q-displacement`))
qd.extreme <- head(qd.extreme, 5)
qd.extreme
ggplot(qd_tbl, aes(x = `Obs. number`, y = `Q-displacement`)) +
geom_linerange(aes(ymin = 0, ymax = `Q-displacement`)) +
geom_text_repel(data = qd.extreme, aes(label = `Obs. number`))
and
<- cooks.distance(fit, type = "LD")
ld_fit
<- tibble("Likelihood displacement" = ld_fit, "Obs. number" = 1:length(ld_fit))
ld_tbl
# Get 5 most extreme points
<- arrange(ld_tbl, desc(`Likelihood displacement`))
ld.extreme <- head(ld.extreme, 5)
ld.extreme
ggplot(ld_tbl, aes(x = `Obs. number`, y = `Likelihood displacement`)) +
geom_linerange(aes(ymin = 0, ymax = `Likelihood displacement`)) +
geom_text_repel(data = ld.extreme, aes(label = `Obs. number`))
The mixpoissonreg package contains the local_influence
method implemented. This method contains conformal normal curvatures and normal curvatures under several perturbation schemes. It returns a list whose elements are the perturbation schemes contained in the perturbation
argument.
The local influence was introduced in the seminal paper Cook (1986), in which the normal curvatures under different perturbations schemes were introduced. Cook suggested the analysis of the perturbation schemes in the directions of largest curvatures. Lesaffre and Verbeke (1998) suggested the analysis for each canonical direction and called this “total local influence”. Poon and Poon (1999) introduced the conformal normal curvature which has the advantadge of taking values in the standard unit interval [0,1]. Finally, Zhu and Lee (2001) introduced local influence measures for EM-based models. They computed normal and conformal normal curvatures for EM-based models.
Below, we discuss the arguments of the local_influence
method in detail. Notice that in this vignette we do not provide interpretations of the influence results, we focus on how to compute the measures. For interpretations of the influence measures we refer the reader to the Analyzing overdispersed count data with the mixpoissonreg package vignette.
By default, the local_influence
method for mixpoissonreg
objects returns the conformal normal curvature since it takes values in the standard unit interval [0,1]. For conformal normal curvatures the benchmark suggested by Zhu and Lee (2001) is returned as the benchmark
attribute to each returned element, i.e., for each perturbation considered.
For example:
<- mixpoissonreg(daysabs ~ gender + math + prog | gender + math + prog,
fit data = Attendance, em_controls = list(maxit=1))
<- local_influence(fit)
loc_inf_fit
ls(loc_inf_fit)
#> [1] "case_weights" "hidden_variable"
#> [3] "mean_explanatory" "precision_explanatory"
#> [5] "simultaneous_explanatory"
head(loc_inf_fit$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.0014599089 0.0009698309 0.0007123667 0.0003501633 0.0006804085 0.0011842828
attr(loc_inf_fit$case_weights, "benchmark")
#> [1] 0.01398722
To compute the normal curvature, simply set the curvature
argument to “normal”. For normal curvature the benchmark
attribute contains the benchmark suggested by Verbeke and Molenberghs (2000, sect. 11.3). For example:
<- local_influence(fit, curvature = "normal")
loc_inf_normal_fit
ls(loc_inf_normal_fit)
#> [1] "case_weights" "hidden_variable"
#> [3] "mean_explanatory" "precision_explanatory"
#> [5] "simultaneous_explanatory"
head(loc_inf_normal_fit$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.004246929 0.002821274 0.002072301 0.001018638 0.001979334 0.003445122
attr(loc_inf_normal_fit$case_weights, "benchmark")
#> [1] 0.0185289
The default direction of local_influence
method for mixpoissonreg
objects is the canonical direction, that is, it computes the total local influence (Lesaffre and Verbeke, 1998).
For canonical directions the local_influence
method also returns benchmarks for each perturbation scheme, following Zhu and Lee (2001) for conformal normal curvatures and Verbeke and Molenberghs (2000, sect. 11.3) for normal curvatures.
To change the directions to the directions of largest curvatures one must set the direction
argument to “max.eigen”.
For mixed Poisson regression models (and actually for very large class of regression models) both the normal and conformal normal curvatures are quadratic forms with respect to the direction, that is, by seeing the direction as the variable. The name “max.eigen” for the direction of largest curvature comes from the fact that the direction of largest curvature is the direction of the eigenvector of the associated quadratic form associated to the eigenvalue with largest absolute value.
Notice that for direction of largest curvature no benchmark is returned, so if one calls the benchmark
attribute, the returned value will be NA
:
# Conformal normal curvature
<- local_influence(fit, direction = "max.eigen")
loc_inf_fit_larg_curv
ls(loc_inf_fit_larg_curv)
#> [1] "case_weights" "hidden_variable"
#> [3] "mean_explanatory" "precision_explanatory"
#> [5] "simultaneous_explanatory"
head(loc_inf_fit_larg_curv$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> -0.057396493 -0.068340893 0.021970638 -0.004724979 0.006115105 -0.015803334
attr(loc_inf_fit_larg_curv$case_weights, "benchmark")
#> [1] NA
# Normal curvature
<- local_influence(fit, curvature = "normal",
loc_inf_normal_fit_larg_curv direction = "max.eigen")
ls(loc_inf_normal_fit_larg_curv)
#> [1] "case_weights" "hidden_variable"
#> [3] "mean_explanatory" "precision_explanatory"
#> [5] "simultaneous_explanatory"
head(loc_inf_normal_fit_larg_curv$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> -0.057396493 -0.068340893 0.021970638 -0.004724979 0.006115105 -0.015803334
attr(loc_inf_normal_fit_larg_curv$case_weights, "benchmark")
#> [1] NA
The available perturbation schemes are “case_weights”, “hidden_variable”, “mean_explanatory”, “precision_explanatory”, “simultaneous_explanatory”. For mixed Poisson regression models, these perturbation schemes are given in Barreto-Souza and Simas (2016). The case weights and explanatory variable perturbations were introduced by Cook (1986) whereas the hidden variable perturbation requires a latent variable and was introduced by Barreto-Souza and Simas (2016). Notice that there is not a response variable perturbation scheme since the response variable is discrete, so it does not make sense to do such a perturbation.
By default, the local_influence
method for mixpoissonreg
object returns a list with all the available perturbation schemes.
<- local_influence(fit)
loc_inf_fit
ls(loc_inf_fit)
#> [1] "case_weights" "hidden_variable"
#> [3] "mean_explanatory" "precision_explanatory"
#> [5] "simultaneous_explanatory"
Notice that if there is no precision covariates, then the returned values for “precision_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” are NA
and a warning message is generated:
<- mixpoissonreg(daysabs ~ gender + math + prog,
fit2 data = Attendance,
em_controls = list(maxit=1))
<- local_influence(fit2)
loc_inf_fit2
ls(loc_inf_fit2)
#> [1] "case_weights" "hidden_variable"
#> [3] "mean_explanatory" "precision_explanatory"
#> [5] "simultaneous_explanatory"
head(loc_inf_fit2$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.0007928476 0.0007005787 0.0006602506 0.0005594278 0.0008113136 0.0017174080
head(loc_inf_fit2$precision_explanatory)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> NA NA NA NA NA NA
head(loc_inf_fit2$simultaneous_explanatory)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> NA NA NA NA NA NA
To select a subset of perturbations, enter a list or vector with the desired perturbations as the perturbation
argument:
<- local_influence(fit, perturbation = c("case_weights", "hidden_variable"))
loc_inf_1
ls(loc_inf_1)
#> [1] "case_weights" "hidden_variable"
head(loc_inf_1$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.0014599089 0.0009698309 0.0007123667 0.0003501633 0.0006804085 0.0011842828
<- local_influence(fit, perturbation = c("case_weights", "hidden_variable"),
loc_inf_2 curvature = "normal",
direction = "max.eigen")
ls(loc_inf_2)
#> [1] "case_weights" "hidden_variable"
head(loc_inf_2$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> -0.057396493 -0.068340893 0.021970638 -0.004724979 0.006115105 -0.015803334
The parameters
argument of the local_influence
method for mixpoissonreg
objects refer to the “case_weights” and “hidden_variable” perturbation schemes. One can obtain case weights and hidden variable perturbations with respect to all parameters, with respect to the mean-related parameters and with respect to the precision-related parameters.
By default, the case weights and hidden variable perturbations are returned with respect to all parameters. To return case weights and hidden variable perturbations with respect to the mean-related parameters, one must set the parameters
argument to “mean”:
<- local_influence(fit, parameters = "mean")
loc_inf_fit_mean
head(loc_inf_fit_mean$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 6.649242e-05 2.030222e-04 1.270937e-03 1.087213e-03 1.944443e-03 1.787973e-03
Analogously, to return case weights and hidden variable perturbations with respect to the precision-related parameters, one must set the parameters
argument to “precision”:
<- local_influence(fit, parameters = "precision")
loc_inf_fit_precision
head(loc_inf_fit_precision$case_weights)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 2.113570e-03 1.329546e-03 4.503374e-04 4.408205e-06 8.744134e-05 9.010877e-04
The mean.covariates
argument refers to the “mean.explanatory” and “simultaneous.explanatory” perturbations schemes, whereas the precision.covariates
argument refers to the “precision.explanatory” and “simultaneous.explanatory” perturbations schemes. The idea is that only the covariates listed in these arguments will be perturbed, so one can see the influence of observations with respect to those covariates. If mean.covariates
is NULL
, then all the mean-related covariates will be considered. Analogously, if precision.covariates
is NULL
, then all the precision-related covariates will be considered.
Remark: Notice that factor and integer-valued covariates should not be perturbed since it does not make sense to make infinitesimal perturbations on them. You should only perturb continuous variables.
By default both mean.covariates
and precision.covariates
are NULL
, so all non-factor covariates are perturbed. Notice that integer non-factor covariates will be perturbed, so you should manually remove them.
Let us consider, for example, the following model:
set.seed(1234)
<- rexp(200, rate = 2)
x1 <- rnorm(200)
x2 <- factor(as.integer(2*runif(200) + 1))
x3 <- as.integer(10*runif(200))
x4
<- stats::rnbinom(200, mu = exp(1-x1-x2-(x3==2)+0.1*x4),
y size = exp(1+2*x1+x2))
<- mixpoissonreg(y ~ x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 | x1 + x2,
fit_example em_controls = list(maxit=1))
summary(fit_example)
#>
#> Negative Binomial Regression - Expectation-Maximization Algorithm
#>
#> Call:
#> mixpoissonreg(formula = y ~ x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 | x1 + x2, em_controls = list(maxit = 1))
#>
#>
#> Pearson residuals:
#> RSS Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
#> 184.5508 -1.5734 -0.6603 -0.3186 0.4243 3.8465
#>
#> Coefficients modeling the mean (with link):
#> Estimate Std.error z-value Pr(>|z|)
#> (Intercept) 0.88304 0.18902 4.672 2.99e-06 ***
#> x1 -1.28107 0.18555 -6.904 5.05e-12 ***
#> x2 -0.99686 0.08599 -11.592 < 2e-16 ***
#> x32 -1.16351 0.15225 -7.642 2.14e-14 ***
#> x4 0.14925 0.02512 5.940 2.84e-09 ***
#>
#> Coefficients modeling the precision (with link):
#> Estimate Std.error z-value Pr(>|z|)
#> (Intercept) 1.0731 0.4655 2.305 0.02115 *
#> x1 2.6327 1.0925 2.410 0.01597 *
#> x2 1.0746 0.3353 3.204 0.00135 **
#> ---
#> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
#>
#> Efron's pseudo R-squared: 0.52115
#> Number of iterations of the EM algorithm = 1
Remark: Notice that since x3 is a factor and x4 is integer-valued, they are discrete and it does not make sense to make infinitesimal perturbations on them. You should only perturb continuous variables.
To consider the “mean_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” perturbation schemes with respect to the “x1” covariate, we simply set the mean.covariates
argument to “x1”:
<- local_influence(fit_example, mean.covariates = "x1")
loc_inf_x1
head(loc_inf_x1$mean_explanatory)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 9.184808e-09 3.332425e-06 1.352478e-06 4.736643e-07 5.720140e-09 1.752231e-06
To consider more than one covariate, simply enter the covariates as a vector. For instance, to consider the “mean_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” perturbation schemes with respect to the “x1” and “x2” covariates, we simply set the mean.covariates
argument to c("x1", "x2")
:
<- local_influence(fit_example, mean.covariates = c("x1", "x2"))
loc_inf_x1_x2
head(loc_inf_x1_x2$mean_explanatory)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 9.184808e-09 3.332425e-06 1.352478e-06 4.736643e-07 5.720140e-09 1.752231e-06
The covariates used in the “mean_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” perturbation schemes are returned as covariates
attributes in the “mean_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” perturbation schemes:
attr(loc_inf_x1$mean_explanatory, "covariates")
#> [1] "x1"
attr(loc_inf_x1$simultaneous_explanatory, "covariates")
#> $mean
#> [1] "x1"
#>
#> $precision
#> [1] "all"
attr(loc_inf_x1_x2$mean_explanatory, "covariates")
#> [1] "x1" "x2"
attr(loc_inf_x1_x2$simultaneous_explanatory, "covariates")
#> $mean
#> [1] "x1" "x2"
#>
#> $precision
#> [1] "all"
Analogously, to consider the “precision_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” perturbation schemes with respect to the “x1” covariate, we simply set the precision.covariates
argument to “x1”:
<- local_influence(fit_example, precision.covariates = "x1")
loc_inf_prec_x1
head(loc_inf_prec_x1$precision_explanatory)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.0112811796 0.0008030722 0.0015556764 0.0073939712 0.0054385258 0.0015444537
In the same manner as in the “mean_explanatory” perturbation scheme, to consider more than one covariate, simply enter the covariates as a vector. For instance, to consider the “precision_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” perturbation schemes with respect to the “x1” and “x2” covariates, we simply set the precision.covariates
argument to c("x1", "x2")
:
<- local_influence(fit_example, precision.covariates = c("x1", "x2"))
loc_inf_prec_x1_x2
head(loc_inf_prec_x1_x2$precision_explanatory)
#> 1 2 3 4 5 6
#> 0.0112811796 0.0008030722 0.0015556764 0.0073939712 0.0054385258 0.0015444537
The covariates used in the “precision_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” perturbation schemes are returned as covariates
attributes in the “precision_explanatory” and “simultaneous_explanatory” perturbation schemes:
attr(loc_inf_prec_x1$precision_explanatory, "covariates")
#> [1] "x1"
attr(loc_inf_prec_x1$simultaneous_explanatory, "covariates")
#> $mean
#> [1] "all"
#>
#> $precision
#> [1] "x1"
attr(loc_inf_prec_x1_x2$precision_explanatory, "covariates")
#> [1] "x1" "x2"
attr(loc_inf_prec_x1_x2$simultaneous_explanatory, "covariates")
#> $mean
#> [1] "all"
#>
#> $precision
#> [1] "x1" "x2"
It is possible to plot the perturbation schemes for all the possible combinations of arguments of the local_influence
method by using the local_influence_plot
and local_influence_autoplot
methods. The local_influence_plot
and local_influence_autoplot
methods provide the same plots, the difference between them being that the former uses R’s base graphics whereas the latter uses the ggplot2
package.
If the direction
argument is set to “canonical” (the default), then the n.influential
points above the benchmarks are automatically identified, where the default value for n.influential
is 5. Recall that we use the benchmarks suggested by Zhu and Lee (2001) for conformal normal curvatures and the benchmarks suggested by Verbeke and Molenberghs (2000, sect. 11.3) for normal curvatures. For direction = "max.eigen"
, no benchmark is provided. In this case, the local_influence_plot
and local_influence_autoplot
methods automatically identify the n.influential
most extremes points.
Let us build these plots. First, the standard arguments provide the plots of conformal normal curvature in the canonical directions for the “case_weights”, “hidden_variable”, “mean_explanatory” and “precision_explanatory” perturbation schemes with “case_weights” and “hidden_variable” being computed for all parameters, and the explanatory perturbations being computed for all covariates:
<- mixpoissonreg(daysabs ~ gender + math + prog | gender + math + prog,
fit data = Attendance, em_controls = list(maxit=1))
# Notice that since gender and prog are factors,
# they are not considered in the computation of the
# explanatory variables perturbation schemes
local_influence_plot(fit)
and
local_influence_autoplot(fit)
To change to normal curvature simply set the curvature
argument to “normal”:
local_influence_plot(fit, curvature = "normal")
and
local_influence_autoplot(fit, curvature = "normal")
We can change the direction to the direction of largest curvature by setting the direction
to “max.eigen”:
local_influence_plot(fit, direction = "max.eigen")