From 6d468a736c19c08469bd4ff4768bf0583ac6ca83 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Metehan=20G=C3=9CNG=C3=96R?= <102655648+gungorMetehan@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2026 13:46:41 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Update _25-sa-inf-model-mlr.qmd Minor fixes --- exercises/_25-sa-inf-model-mlr.qmd | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/exercises/_25-sa-inf-model-mlr.qmd b/exercises/_25-sa-inf-model-mlr.qmd index 6229299a..4b78311c 100644 --- a/exercises/_25-sa-inf-model-mlr.qmd +++ b/exercises/_25-sa-inf-model-mlr.qmd @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ 1. \(a\) **L**inearity: Horror movies seem to show a much different pattern than the other genres. While the residuals plots show a random scatter over years and in order of data collection, there is a clear pattern in residuals for various genres, which signals that this regression model is not appropriate for these data. **I**ndependent observations: The variability of the residuals is higher for data that comes later in the dataset. We don't know if the data are sorted by year, but if so, there may be a temporal pattern in the data that voilates the independence condition. **N**ormality: The residuals are right skewed (skewed to the high end). Constant or **E**qual variability: The residuals vs. predicted values plot reveals some outliers. This plot for only babies with predicted birth weights between 6 and 8.5 pounds looks a lot better, suggesting that for bulk of the data the constant variance condition is met. \addtocounter{enumi}{1} -1. \(a\) Linearity: With so many observations in the dataset, we look for particularly extreme outliers in the histogram of residuals and do not see any. We also don't see a non-linear pattern emerging in the residuals vs. predicted plot. Independent observations: The sample is random and there does not seem to be a trend in the residuals vs. order of data collection plot. Normality: The histogram of residuals appears to be unimodal and symmetic, centered at 0. Constant or equal variability: The residuals vs. predicted values plot reveals some outliers. This plot for only babies with predicted birth weights between 6 and 8.5 pounds looks a lot better, suggesting that for bulk of the data the constant variance condition is met. All concerns raised here are relatively mild. There are some outliers, but there is so much data that the influence of such observations will be minor. (b) $H_0$: The true slope coefficient of habit is zero ($\beta_5 = 0$). $H_A$: The true slope coefficient of height is different than zero ($\beta_5 \neq 0$). The p-value for the two-sided alternative hypothesis ($\beta_5 \ne 0$) is incredibly 0.0007 (smaller than 0.05), so we reject $H_0$. The data provide convincing evidence that height and weight are positively correlated, given the other variables in the model. The true slope parameter is indeed greater than 0. +1. \(a\) Linearity: With so many observations in the dataset, we look for particularly extreme outliers in the histogram of residuals and do not see any. We also don't see a non-linear pattern emerging in the residuals vs. predicted plot. Independent observations: The sample is random and there does not seem to be a trend in the residuals vs. order of data collection plot. Normality: The histogram of residuals appears to be unimodal and symmetric, centered at 0. Constant or equal variability: The residuals vs. predicted values plot reveals some outliers. This plot for only babies with predicted birth weights between 6 and 8.5 pounds looks a lot better, suggesting that for bulk of the data the constant variance condition is met. All concerns raised here are relatively mild. There are some outliers, but there is so much data that the influence of such observations will be minor. (b) $H_0$: The true slope coefficient of habit is zero ($\beta_5 = 0$). $H_A$: The true slope coefficient of height is different than zero ($\beta_5 \neq 0$). The p-value for the two-sided alternative hypothesis ($\beta_5 \ne 0$) is incredibly 0.0007 (smaller than 0.05), so we reject $H_0$. The data provide convincing evidence that height and weight are positively correlated, given the other variables in the model. The true slope parameter is indeed greater than 0. \addtocounter{enumi}{1} 1. \(a\) Roughly $\widehat{\texttt{weight}} = 11$ pounds and $\texttt{weight}_i = 7$ pounds. (b) Folds 1, 2, and 4 were used to build the prediction model. (c) The plot on the top estimates 8 parameters; the plot on the bottom estimates 3 parameters. (d) The residuals are not substantially different.