Chapter 16 Stepwise model selection

16.1 Motivation

Problem: Already when there are moderately many explanatory variables, the number of possible models is very large (especially when also considering interactions) and grows exponentially fast.

Consequences:

  • Fitting all possible models is burdensome and computationally intensive.
  • If these models are all compared using significance tests, the usual interpretation of type I errors is lost.

Solutions:

  • Information criteria for model selection (instead of significance tests).
  • Stepwise model fitting (instead of all models in advance).

Moreover: Regularized estimation or iterative model fitting (boosting, trees) are other possible strategies (not considered here).

Example: Which explanatory variables should be used to model invest in the MLA data? Which interactions effects between the variables male, age, treatment, grade, arrangement should be considered?

##      invest       male          age       treatment     grade     arrangement 
##  Min.   :  0.0   no :320   Min.   :11.1   long :285   6-8  :341   single:385  
##  1st Qu.: 30.0   yes:250   1st Qu.:12.0   short:285   10-12:229   team  :185  
##  Median : 50.0             Median :13.9                                       
##  Mean   : 50.4             Mean   :14.3                                       
##  3rd Qu.: 70.0             3rd Qu.:15.9                                       
##  Max.   :100.0             Max.   :21.1

16.2 Type I error

Problem: When conducting many significance tests (e.g., \(F\)-tests for model comparisons), the probability for a type I error increases quickly.

Example:

  • In a significance test, the probability for a type I error (rejecting a null hypothesis although it is correct) is controlled, often set to 5%.
  • Thus, a type I error can be avoided with 95% probability.
  • When conducting 10 such tests independently, the probability to avoid a type I error in all of them is only \(0.95^{10} = 0.599\).
  • In this case the probability for a type I error increased to about 40%.

Alternatively: Use information criteria instead of significance tests for model selection.

16.3 Information criteria

Ideas:

  • Adding any regressor always decreases the residual sum of squares (RSS).
  • Thus, choosing the model with the lowest RSS would always choose the most complex model.
  • Hence make a tradeoff between decreasing the objective function RSS and keeping the model simple (with few parameters/coefficients).

Popular: AIC (Akaike information criterion) and BIC (Bayes information criterion or Schwartz criterion). Both have a similar form but employ different penalties for the tradeoff.

\[\begin{eqnarray*} \mathsf{AIC}(\hat \beta) & = & n \cdot \log(\mathit{RSS}(\hat \beta)) ~+~ 2 \cdot k, \\ \mathsf{BIC}(\hat \beta) & = & n \cdot \log(\mathit{RSS}(\hat \beta)) ~+~ \log(n) \cdot k. \end{eqnarray*}\]

Properties:

  • When comparing two models with AIC or BIC, the one with the smaller criterion is preferred.
  • The penalty term of BIC is higher than for AIC (when \(n \ge 8\)). Hence BIC tends to select smaller models.
  • There are various equivalent definitions of AIC and BIC, e.g., in R a constant is added (for reasons explained later).
  • Both criteria have a consistency property:
    • AIC asymptotically selects the model that best approximates the true model (ie., allowing for model misspecification).
    • BIC asymptotically selects the true model if this is one of the models in the selection.

16.4 Stepwise model selection

Previously: Fit all relevant models in advance and then select the best one (e.g., via significance tests or information criteria. However, this is computationally intensive if there are many explanatory variables.

Backward selection: Start with the most complex candidate model. Stepwise simplification, dropping the least relevant variable (if any). Stop if model cannot be improved further.

Forward selection: Start with the simplest candidate model. Stepwise extension of the model, adding the most relevant variable (if any). Stop if model cannot be improved further.

Model comparison: Either via \(F\)-tests or information criteria.

Combination: Forward and backward selection, starting from some plausible initial model (not necessarily the simplest or most complex). In each step add or drop one variable that most improves the model (if any).

In R: step().

16.5 Application

Goal: Based on the AIC, select all relevant explanatory variables and interactions for invest in MLA data.

Minimal model: Trivial model (constant only).

Maximal model: male, age, treatment, grade, arrangement and all pairwise interactions (also denoted by ^2 in R).

Initial model: Main effects.

In R:

m1 <- lm(invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement, data = MLA)
m2 <- step(m1, scope = list(
  lower = invest ~ 1,
  upper = invest ~ (male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement)^2
))
## Start:  AIC=3678
## invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement
## 
##                         Df Sum of Sq    RSS  AIC
## + grade:arrangement      1      6485 347844 3670
## + age:arrangement        1      5759 348570 3671
## + age:grade              1      3437 350892 3675
## - treatment              1         8 354337 3676
## <none>                               354329 3678
## + male:grade             1       936 353393 3679
## + treatment:arrangement  1       782 353547 3679
## + male:age               1       352 353977 3680
## + treatment:grade        1        28 354301 3680
## + male:treatment         1        27 354302 3680
## + male:arrangement       1        23 354306 3680
## + age:treatment          1        20 354309 3680
## - grade                  1      3684 358012 3682
## - age                    1      6773 361102 3687
## - male                   1     11918 366247 3695
## - arrangement            1     14007 368335 3699
## Step:  AIC=3670
## invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement
## 
##                         Df Sum of Sq    RSS  AIC
## + age:grade              1      3747 344097 3666
## - treatment              1        68 347912 3668
## <none>                               347844 3670
## + treatment:arrangement  1       970 346874 3670
## + age:arrangement        1       134 347710 3672
## + male:age               1        88 347757 3672
## + age:treatment          1        81 347763 3672
## + male:arrangement       1        62 347782 3672
## + male:grade             1        38 347806 3672
## + male:treatment         1         2 347842 3672
## + treatment:grade        1         0 347844 3672
## - grade:arrangement      1      6485 354329 3678
## - age                    1      7311 355155 3680
## - male                   1     11856 359700 3687
## Step:  AIC=3666
## invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + 
##     age:grade
## 
##                         Df Sum of Sq    RSS  AIC
## - treatment              1        85 344182 3664
## <none>                               344097 3666
## + treatment:arrangement  1       928 343169 3666
## + age:arrangement        1       315 343782 3667
## + male:age               1       135 343962 3668
## + age:treatment          1        83 344014 3668
## + male:treatment         1        79 344018 3668
## + male:grade             1        67 344030 3668
## + treatment:grade        1         1 344096 3668
## + male:arrangement       1         1 344096 3668
## - age:grade              1      3747 347844 3670
## - grade:arrangement      1      6795 350892 3675
## - male                   1     11840 355937 3683
## Step:  AIC=3664
## invest ~ male + age + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + 
##     age:grade
## 
##                     Df Sum of Sq    RSS  AIC
## <none>                           344182 3664
## + age:arrangement    1       328 343854 3665
## + male:age           1       117 344065 3666
## + treatment          1        85 344097 3666
## + male:grade         1        52 344130 3666
## + male:arrangement   1         0 344182 3666
## - age:grade          1      3730 347912 3668
## - grade:arrangement  1      6723 350905 3673
## - male               1     12157 356339 3682

Interpretation:

  • The selected model includes all main effects except treatment.
  • For example, (teams with) male players invest \(10.35\) percentage points more than female players or all-female teams.
  • Interaction effects between grade and arrangement as well as grade and age are included.
  • The team effect is only \(6.28\) in the lower grades (reference category) but \(21.35\) in the higher grades.
  • Age differences within the lower grades have only a small influence on investment with a slope of \(1.15\). The age differences in the higher grades have a somewhat more pronounced effect with a slope of \(5.73\).
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = invest ~ male + age + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + 
##     age:grade, data = MLA)
## 
## Residuals:
##    Min     1Q Median     3Q    Max 
## -77.35 -19.67   0.24  19.16  57.24 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                            Estimate Std. Error t value  Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept)                   28.44      15.75    1.81   0.07136
## maleyes                       10.35       2.32    4.46 0.0000099
## age                            1.15       1.24    0.93   0.35041
## grade10-12                   -84.37      28.15   -3.00   0.00284
## arrangementteam                6.28       3.02    2.08   0.03788
## grade10-12:arrangementteam    15.07       4.55    3.32   0.00097
## age:grade10-12                 4.58       1.85    2.47   0.01380
## 
## Residual standard error: 24.7 on 563 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.158,  Adjusted R-squared:  0.149 
## F-statistic: 17.7 on 6 and 563 DF,  p-value: <2e-16

16.7 Tutorial

16.7.1 Setup

The myopic loss aversion (MLA) data (MLA.csv, MLA.rda) already analyzed in Chapters 13, 14, and @ref(analysis-of covariance) are reconsidered. Here, the dependence of invested point percentages (invest) on all available explanatory variables and potential pairwise interaction is investigated, using AIC-based stepwise model selection. Only the variable gender is not included in the model search as it can be represented as a certain interaction of the male and arrangement factors.

R
load("MLA.rda")
summary(MLA[, -2])
##      invest       male          age       treatment     grade     arrangement 
##  Min.   :  0.0   no :320   Min.   :11.1   long :285   6-8  :341   single:385  
##  1st Qu.: 30.0   yes:250   1st Qu.:12.0   short:285   10-12:229   team  :185  
##  Median : 50.0             Median :13.9                                       
##  Mean   : 50.4             Mean   :14.3                                       
##  3rd Qu.: 70.0             3rd Qu.:15.9                                       
##  Max.   :100.0             Max.   :21.1
Python
# Make sure that the required libraries are installed.
# Import libraries and classes:
import pandas as pd 
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns
import statsmodels.api as sm
import statsmodels.formula.api as smf
from itertools import combinations

pd.set_option("display.precision", 4) # Set display precision to 4 digits in pandas and numpy.
# Load dataset
MLA = pd.read_csv("MLA.csv", index_col=False, header=0) 

MLA.describe(include="all") 
##           invest  gender male       age treatment grade arrangement
## count   570.0000     570  570  570.0000       570   570         570
## unique       NaN       3    2       NaN         2     2           2
## top          NaN  female   no       NaN      long   6-8      single
## freq         NaN     320  320       NaN       285   341         385
## mean     50.3784     NaN  NaN   14.3331       NaN   NaN         NaN
## std      26.8094     NaN  NaN    2.3029       NaN   NaN         NaN
## min       0.0000     NaN  NaN   11.1256       NaN   NaN         NaN
## 25%      30.0000     NaN  NaN   11.9782       NaN   NaN         NaN
## 50%      50.0000     NaN  NaN   13.8756       NaN   NaN         NaN
## 75%      70.0000     NaN  NaN   15.9397       NaN   NaN         NaN
## max     100.0000     NaN  NaN   21.1064       NaN   NaN         NaN
MLA.head(5)
##     invest       gender male      age treatment grade arrangement
## 0  70.0000  female/male  yes  11.7533      long   6-8        team
## 1  28.3333  female/male  yes  12.0866      long   6-8        team
## 2  50.0000  female/male  yes  11.7950      long   6-8        team
## 3  50.0000         male  yes  13.7566      long   6-8        team
## 4  24.3333  female/male  yes  11.2950      long   6-8        team
# Preview the first 5 lines of the loaded data 

16.7.2 Information criteria

Information criteria are an alternative to analysis of variance (ANOVA, Chapter 14) for model selection. As the \(F\)-tests underlying the ANOVA do not control their type-I error if multiple tests are carried out, information criteria instead use a trade-off between minimizing the objective function (residual sum of squares, negative log-likelihood, …) and increasing the model complexity as captured by the degrees of freedom (df, the number of estimated parameters in a model).

Most commonly-used information criteria \(\text{IC}(\hat \beta)\) for a model with estimated parameters \(\hat \beta\) have the following form:

\[ \text{IC}(\hat \beta) ~=~ -2 \cdot \ell(\hat \beta) ~+~ k \cdot \text{df}\\ \] where \(\ell(\hat \beta)\) is the maximized log-likelihood of the model (see Chapter 18), \(\text{df}\) are the degrees of freedom (number of estimated parameters in \(\hat \beta\)) and \(k\) is the penalty parameter. Setting \(k = 2\) corresponds to the AIC (Akaike information criterion) and \(k = \log(n)\) yields the BIC (Bayes information criterion).

Some formulations of AIC/BIC use a different objective function instead of the log-likelihood. For example, based on the residual sum of squares \(\mathit{RSS}(\hat \beta)\):

\[ \text{IC}(\hat \beta) ~=~ n \cdot \log(\mathit{RSS}(\hat \beta)) ~+~ k \cdot \text{df}\\ \] This differs by a constant from the definition above based on \(n \cdot \log(\mathit{RSS}(\hat \beta))\). However, as the constant is the same for all models on the same data set, it does not change the resulting model selection.

For illustration, we fit the main effects model of all explanatory variables for modeling invest in the MLA data:

R
m1 <- lm(invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement, data = MLA)

Methods for lm objects:

Method Description
print() Simple display with call and coefficient estimates.
summary() Detailed summary including coefficient estimates, standard errors, \(t\)-tests as well as \(F\)-test agains the trivial model.
coef() Extract coefficient estimates \(\hat \beta\).
fitted() Extract fitted values \(\hat y_i\) (in-sample).
residuals() Extract residuals \(\hat \varepsilon_i\).
predict() Predictions on new data.
anova() Model comparison via analysis of variance and \(F\)-test.
logLik() Extract maximized log-likelihood and degrees of freedom.
AIC(), BIC() Extract AIC, BIC, and other information criteria.
step() Stepwise model selection based on information criteria.

Remark: All the methods above are also available for many other model classes in R, especially generalized linear models (GLMs) via glm().

Python
m_1 = smf.ols("invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement", data=MLA).fit()

The corresponding log-likelihood, degrees of freedom, and number of observations can then be extracted by:

R
logLik(m1)
## 'log Lik.' -2642 (df=7)
nobs(m1)
## [1] 570
Python
m_1.llf
## np.float64(-2642.0131643370705)
m_1.df_model
## 5.0
m_1.nobs
## 570.0

Regarding the degrees of freedom, note that there are different conventions which parameters are counted here and which are not. It is clear that the five slope coefficients should be counted (as in Python/statsmodels) but additionally the intercept coefficient and/or the error variance can be counted as well (as in R).

These are then the basis for the computation of the information criteria:

R

In R, the function AIC(object, k = 2) can be used to compute the AIC for a given fitted model object - here of class "lm" but other model classes are also supported, notably "glm". Internally, this computes logLik(object) to extract the maximized log-likelihood and corresponding degrees of freedom. For computing the BIC, either the k argument can be changed manually or BIC(object) can be used which extracts the number of observations in the associated data set by nobs(object).

AIC(m1)
## [1] 5298
BIC(m1)
## [1] 5328
Python

These may differ by a constant between different implementations (R vs. Python but also in different packages) but this does not affect the ordering of the models with respect to these information criteria.

m_1.aic
## np.float64(5296.026328674141)
m_1.bic
## np.float64(5322.100146839112)

Additionally, it is worth pointing out that the BIC could equivalently be obtained by the AIC() function when the penalty k is set appropriately:

R
AIC(m1, k = log(570))
## [1] 5328
Python
k = np.log(m_1.nobs)
AIC = -2.0 * m_1.llf + k * (m_1.df_model+1)
print(AIC)
## 5322.100146839112

By themselves these information criteria are not very meaningful. They only become interesting for comparing different models fitted to the same data set where a lower information criterion indicates a better fit. Such a comparison can be made manually for previously fitted model objects. Moreover, the step() function introduced in the next section can automatically fit and select models in a stepwise approach.

16.7.3 Stepwise model selection

The main function for stepwise model selection in R is the function step(). Python has no equivalent of the R function step(), therefore we provide the function stepwise_selection() with similar functionalities. We follow the R tutorial for details and introduce the usage of the function(s) in both R and Python.

The most important arguments of the step() function are:

step(object, scope = list(lower = ..., upper = ...),
  direction = "both", k = 2, ...)

The object is a fitted model object - here of class "lm" but other model classes are also supported, notably "glm". The scope is a list of the simplest (lower) and most complex (upper) model to be considered, see below for a concrete example. The search direction could be restricted to only "forward" or only "backward" search but the default is to do "both". The argument k corresponds to the penalty parameter in the computation of the information criterion (see above). As in the AIC() function, the default is k = 2 corresponding to the AIC but by setting k = log(n) the BIC could be used for the model selection.

Here, we start the stepwise model search from the main effects model m1, using all available explanatory variables. As the lower end of the scope the trivial model invest ~ 1 without any covariates is employed while the upper end is set to an interaction model allowing all pairwise interactions. In R this could be specified as invest ~ male + age + ... + male:age + ... etc. but a more compact formula is invest ~ (male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement)^2. The ^2 indicates all interactions up to order 2 (higher orders could be used as well). Note that this special meaning of the ^ operator is the reason that the I() function has to be used to obtain its arithmetic meaning, e.g., when computing age-squared as I(age^2).

The reason for restricting ourselves to second-order interactions is that based on our analysis so far, higher orders seem unlikely. Also, these would become increasingly difficult to interpret. Specifically, using the most complex interaction model invest ~ male * age * treatment * grade * arrangement would allow interactions up to order five which would not be plausible in this application.

Carrying out the model selection with arguments as specified above yields:

R
m2 <- step(m1, scope = list(
  lower = invest ~ 1,
  upper = invest ~ (male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement)^2
))
## Start:  AIC=3678
## invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement
## 
##                         Df Sum of Sq    RSS  AIC
## + grade:arrangement      1      6485 347844 3670
## + age:arrangement        1      5759 348570 3671
## + age:grade              1      3437 350892 3675
## - treatment              1         8 354337 3676
## <none>                               354329 3678
## + male:grade             1       936 353393 3679
## + treatment:arrangement  1       782 353547 3679
## + male:age               1       352 353977 3680
## + treatment:grade        1        28 354301 3680
## + male:treatment         1        27 354302 3680
## + male:arrangement       1        23 354306 3680
## + age:treatment          1        20 354309 3680
## - grade                  1      3684 358012 3682
## - age                    1      6773 361102 3687
## - male                   1     11918 366247 3695
## - arrangement            1     14007 368335 3699
## 
## Step:  AIC=3670
## invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement
## 
##                         Df Sum of Sq    RSS  AIC
## + age:grade              1      3747 344097 3666
## - treatment              1        68 347912 3668
## <none>                               347844 3670
## + treatment:arrangement  1       970 346874 3670
## + age:arrangement        1       134 347710 3672
## + male:age               1        88 347757 3672
## + age:treatment          1        81 347763 3672
## + male:arrangement       1        62 347782 3672
## + male:grade             1        38 347806 3672
## + male:treatment         1         2 347842 3672
## + treatment:grade        1         0 347844 3672
## - grade:arrangement      1      6485 354329 3678
## - age                    1      7311 355155 3680
## - male                   1     11856 359700 3687
## 
## Step:  AIC=3666
## invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + 
##     age:grade
## 
##                         Df Sum of Sq    RSS  AIC
## - treatment              1        85 344182 3664
## <none>                               344097 3666
## + treatment:arrangement  1       928 343169 3666
## + age:arrangement        1       315 343782 3667
## + male:age               1       135 343962 3668
## + age:treatment          1        83 344014 3668
## + male:treatment         1        79 344018 3668
## + male:grade             1        67 344030 3668
## + treatment:grade        1         1 344096 3668
## + male:arrangement       1         1 344096 3668
## - age:grade              1      3747 347844 3670
## - grade:arrangement      1      6795 350892 3675
## - male                   1     11840 355937 3683
## 
## Step:  AIC=3664
## invest ~ male + age + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + 
##     age:grade
## 
##                     Df Sum of Sq    RSS  AIC
## <none>                           344182 3664
## + age:arrangement    1       328 343854 3665
## + male:age           1       117 344065 3666
## + treatment          1        85 344097 3666
## + male:grade         1        52 344130 3666
## + male:arrangement   1         0 344182 3666
## - age:grade          1      3730 347912 3668
## - grade:arrangement  1      6723 350905 3673
## - male               1     12157 356339 3682
Python

Setup

Download the stepwise_selection.py file in the same folder of your notebook.

from stepwise_selection import stepwise_selection

Usage

m_1 = smf.ols("invest ~ male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement", data=MLA) # DON'T call fit()

m_2 = stepwise_selection(m_1, scope={"lower": "invest ~ 1",
                                     "upper": "invest ~ (male + age + treatment + grade + arrangement)**2" })
## Step:  aic= 5296.026328674141
## (' + grade:arrangement', np.float64(5287.497588176868))
## (' + age:arrangement', np.float64(5288.686294017627))
## (' + age:grade', np.float64(5292.470970482877))
## (' - treatment', np.float64(5294.038844118856))
## ('', np.float64(5296.026328674141))
## (' + male:grade', np.float64(5296.518578654452))
## (' + treatment:arrangement', np.float64(5296.766772650885))
## (' + male:age', np.float64(5297.460103986587))
## (' + treatment:grade', np.float64(5297.981237271327))
## (' + male:treatment', np.float64(5297.983509471273))
## (' + male:arrangement', np.float64(5297.989633730205))
## (' + age:treatment', np.float64(5297.994846344091))
## (' - grade', np.float64(5299.921349788084))
## (' - age', np.float64(5304.819395918524))
## (' - male', np.float64(5312.88346257991))
## (' - arrangement', np.float64(5316.1243356592295))
## Step:  aic= 5287.497588176868
## (' + age:grade', np.float64(5283.324336214653))
## (' - treatment', np.float64(5285.609741230732))
## ('', np.float64(5287.497588176868))
## (' + treatment:arrangement', np.float64(5287.905124140504))
## (' + age:arrangement', np.float64(5289.277796506088))
## (' + male:age', np.float64(5289.354154167884))
## (' + age:treatment', np.float64(5289.364155053963))
## (' + male:arrangement', np.float64(5289.396354056759))
## (' + male:grade', np.float64(5289.4347437099805))
## (' + male:treatment', np.float64(5289.494340327461))
## (' + treatment:grade', np.float64(5289.497050555255))
## (' - grade:arrangement', np.float64(5296.026328674141))
## (' - age', np.float64(5297.354467503067))
## (' - male', np.float64(5304.6020993464435))
## Step:  aic= 5283.324336214653
## (' - treatment', np.float64(5281.46504144095))
## ('', np.float64(5283.324336214653))
## (' + treatment:arrangement', np.float64(5283.78421409581))
## (' + age:arrangement', np.float64(5284.801531908277))
## (' + male:age', np.float64(5285.100943260024))
## (' + age:treatment', np.float64(5285.18694832994))
## (' + male:treatment', np.float64(5285.192713579132))
## (' + male:grade', np.float64(5285.213667227472))
## (' + treatment:grade', np.float64(5285.322717091125))
## (' + male:arrangement', np.float64(5285.322738244473))
## (' - age:grade', np.float64(5287.497588176868))
## (' - grade:arrangement', np.float64(5292.470970482877))
## (' - male', np.float64(5300.607112070311))
## Step:  aic= 5281.46504144095
## ('', np.float64(5281.46504144095))
## (' + age:arrangement', np.float64(5282.9219850838035))
## (' + male:age', np.float64(5283.270560845902))
## (' + age:treatment', np.float64(5283.279723549397))
## (' + treatment', np.float64(5283.324336214653))
## (' + male:grade', np.float64(5283.378344189257))
## (' + male:arrangement', np.float64(5283.464657598176))
## (' + treatment:arrangement', np.float64(5283.78421409581))
## (' + male:treatment', np.float64(5285.192713579132))
## (' + treatment:grade', np.float64(5285.322717091125))
## (' - age:grade', np.float64(5285.609741230732))
## (' - grade:arrangement', np.float64(5290.4916501439475))
## (' - male', np.float64(5299.250849003049))
## Result: aic= 5281.46504144095
## invest ~ male + age + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + age:grade

The output table first states the initial AIC along with the corresponding model formula. Then all possible single-step changes are assessed, either by adding any of the possible pairwise interactions or dropping any of the included main effects. For each possible model update, the search direction is shown (+ vs. -), the term to be added or dropped, the corresponding change in degrees of freedom and change in residual sum of squares, the overall residual sum of squares and the resuling information criterion. The table is already ordered by the information criterion so that the best-fitting model (in terms of the criterion) is listed first. As the unmodified model (<none>) is also listed, it becomes immediately clear, if any change in the model leads to an improvement. Note also that all the terms considered are added/dropped individually (and not sequentially) to the initial model.

Here, the biggest improvement in AIC results from adding the grade:arrangement interaction, i.e., indicating that the size of the team effect differs between lower and upper grades. This then shown as the new model along with its AIC before the next table of single-step modifications is shown. Note that in this next step dropping the main effects of grade or arrangement is not considered because their interaction effect is present in the model.

In the next step, the age:grade interaction is added, indicating different magnitudes of age effects in the lower and upper grades. Again, this becomes the new current model before the next table of single-step modifications is presented. This leads to the exclusion of the treatment main effect. After that no individual effects could be added or dropped to improve the model. Thus, the model selection concludes and returns the model m2: invest ~ male + age + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + age:grade.

R
summary(m2)
## 
## Call:
## lm(formula = invest ~ male + age + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + 
##     age:grade, data = MLA)
## 
## Residuals:
##    Min     1Q Median     3Q    Max 
## -77.35 -19.67   0.24  19.16  57.24 
## 
## Coefficients:
##                            Estimate Std. Error t value  Pr(>|t|)
## (Intercept)                   28.44      15.75    1.81   0.07136
## maleyes                       10.35       2.32    4.46 0.0000099
## age                            1.15       1.24    0.93   0.35041
## grade10-12                   -84.37      28.15   -3.00   0.00284
## arrangementteam                6.28       3.02    2.08   0.03788
## grade10-12:arrangementteam    15.07       4.55    3.32   0.00097
## age:grade10-12                 4.58       1.85    2.47   0.01380
## 
## Residual standard error: 24.7 on 563 degrees of freedom
## Multiple R-squared:  0.158,  Adjusted R-squared:  0.149 
## F-statistic: 17.7 on 6 and 563 DF,  p-value: <2e-16
Python
m2 = smf.ols("invest ~ male + age + grade + arrangement + grade:arrangement + age:grade", data=MLA).fit()
print(m2.summary())
##                             OLS Regression Results                            
## ==============================================================================
## Dep. Variable:                 invest   R-squared:                       0.158
## Model:                            OLS   Adj. R-squared:                  0.149
## Method:                 Least Squares   F-statistic:                     17.66
## Date:                Sun, 17 Nov 2024   Prob (F-statistic):           8.60e-19
## Time:                        12:31:15   Log-Likelihood:                -2633.7
## No. Observations:                 570   AIC:                             5281.
## Df Residuals:                     563   BIC:                             5312.
## Df Model:                           6                                         
## Covariance Type:            nonrobust                                         
## ====================================================================================================
##                                        coef    std err          t      P>|t|      [0.025      0.975]
## ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
## Intercept                          -55.9290     23.332     -2.397      0.017    -101.757     -10.101
## male[T.yes]                         10.3534      2.322      4.459      0.000       5.793      14.914
## grade[T.6-8]                        84.3739     28.146      2.998      0.003      29.090     139.658
## arrangement[T.team]                 21.3517      3.732      5.721      0.000      14.022      28.682
## grade[T.6-8]:arrangement[T.team]   -15.0744      4.546     -3.316      0.001     -24.003      -6.146
## age                                  5.7311      1.382      4.148      0.000       3.017       8.445
## age:grade[T.6-8]                    -4.5769      1.853     -2.470      0.014      -8.216      -0.938
## ==============================================================================
## Omnibus:                       18.099   Durbin-Watson:                   1.623
## Prob(Omnibus):                  0.000   Jarque-Bera (JB):                8.962
## Skew:                           0.038   Prob(JB):                       0.0113
## Kurtosis:                       2.390   Cond. No.                         555.
## ==============================================================================
## 
## Notes:
## [1] Standard Errors assume that the covariance matrix of the errors is correctly specified.

This model can essentially be interpreted as the models in Chapter 14. Noteworthy conclusions include:

  • (Teams with) male players invest 10.35 percentage points more than female players or all-female teams.
  • The team effect is only 6.28 in the lower grades (reference category) but 21.35 in the higher grades.
  • Age differences within the lower grades have only a small influence on investment with a slope of 1.15. The age differences in the higher grades have a somewhat more pronounced effect with a slope of 5.73.