class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide # Proportional odds model ### Dr. Olanrewaju Michael Akande ### Oct 3, 2019 --- ## Announcements - New TA: + [Siqi Fu](https://stat.duke.edu/people/siqi-fu) + Office hours: Thur 3:00 - 5:00pm ## Outline - Questions from last lecture - In-class analysis for multinomial logistic regression - Proportional odds model - In-class analysis for proportional odds model --- class: center, middle # Proportional odds model --- ## Ordinal responses - Suppose the categories of our response variable has a natural ordering. - Let's use data from Example 6.2.2 from Alan Agresti's [An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis, Second Edition](https://find.library.duke.edu/catalog/DUKE005142588) to demonstrate this. - This data is from a General Social Survey. Clearly, political ideology has a five-point ordinal scale, ranging from very liberal to very conservative. .mini[ <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> </th> <th colspan="5">Political Ideology</th> </tr> <tr> <th colspan="2"></th> <td style="text-align:center">Very Liberal</td> <td style="text-align:center">Slightly Liberal</td> <td style="text-align:center">Moderate</td> <td style="text-align:center">Slightly Conservative</td> <td style="text-align:center">Very Conservative</td> </tr> <tr> <th rowspan="2">Female</th> <td height="50px">Democratic</td> <td style="text-align:center">44</td> <td style="text-align:center">47</td> <td style="text-align:center">118</td> <td style="text-align:center">23</td> <td style="text-align:center">32</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50px">Republican</td> <td style="text-align:center">18</td> <td style="text-align:center">28</td> <td style="text-align:center">86</td> <td style="text-align:center">39</td> <td style="text-align:center">48</td> </tr> <tr> <th rowspan="2">Male</th> <td height="50px">Democratic</td> <td style="text-align:center">36</td> <td style="text-align:center">34</td> <td style="text-align:center">53</td> <td style="text-align:center">18</td> <td style="text-align:center">23</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="50px">Republican</td> <td style="text-align:center">12</td> <td style="text-align:center">18</td> <td style="text-align:center">62</td> <td style="text-align:center">45</td> <td style="text-align:center">51</td> </tr> </table> ] --- ## Cumulative logits - When we have ordinal response with categories `\(1, 2, \ldots, J\)`, we still want to estimate .block[ .small[ `$$\Pr[y_i = 1 | \boldsymbol{x}_i] = \pi_{i1}, \ \Pr[y_i = 2 | \boldsymbol{x}_i] = \pi_{i2}, \ \ldots, \ \Pr[y_i = J | \boldsymbol{x}_i] = \pi_{iJ}.$$` ] ] -- - However, we need to use models that can reflect the ordering .block[ .small[ `$$\Pr[y_i\leq 1 | \boldsymbol{x}_i] \leq \Pr[y_i\leq 2 | \boldsymbol{x}_i] \leq \ldots \leq \Pr[y_i\leq J | \boldsymbol{x}_i] = 1.$$` ] ] *Notice that the ordering of probabilities is not for the actual marginal probabilities, but rather the cumulative probabilities.* -- - The multinomial logistic regression we covered in the last class does not enforce this. -- - Instead, we can focus on building models for the cumulative logits, that is, models for .block[ .small[ `$$\textrm{log}\left(\dfrac{\Pr[y_i \leq j | \boldsymbol{x}_i]}{\Pr[y_i > j | \boldsymbol{x}_i]}\right) = \textrm{log}\left(\dfrac{\pi_{i1} + \pi_{i2} + \ldots + \pi_{ij}}{\pi_{i(j+1)} + \pi_{i(j+2)} + \ldots + \pi_{iJ}}\right), \ \ \ j = 1, \ldots, J-1.$$` ] ] --- ## Proportional odds model - This leads us to the .hlight[proportional odds model], written as: .block[ .small[ `$$\textrm{log}\left(\dfrac{\Pr[y_i \leq j| \boldsymbol{x}_i]}{\Pr[y_i > j| \boldsymbol{x}_i]}\right) = \beta_{0j} + \beta_{1} x_{i1} + \beta_{2} x_{i2} + \ldots + \beta_{p} x_{ip}, \ \ \ j = 1, \ldots, J-1.$$` ] ] *There is no need for a model for `\(\Pr[y_i \leq J]\)` since it is necessarily equal to 1.* -- - Notice that this model looks like a binary logistic regression in which we combine the first `\(j\)` categories to form a single category (say 1) and the remaining categories to form a second category (say 0). -- - Since `\(\beta_0\)` is the only parameter indexed by `\(j\)`, the `\(J-1\)` logistic regression curves essentially have the same shapes but different "intercepts". -- - That is, the effect of the predictors is identical for all `\(J - 1\)` cumulative log odds. This is therefore, a more parsimonious model (both in terms of estimation and interpretation) than the multinomial logistic regression, when it fits the data well. --- ## Proportional odds model - The probabilities we care about are quite easy to extract, since each .block[ .small[ `$$\Pr[y_i = j| \boldsymbol{x}_i] = \Pr[y_i \leq j| \boldsymbol{x}_i] - \Pr[y_i \leq j - 1| \boldsymbol{x}_i], \ \ \ j = 2, \ldots, J,$$` ] ] with `\(\Pr[y_i \leq 1| \boldsymbol{x}_i] = \Pr[y_i = 1| \boldsymbol{x}_i]\)`. - Let's focus first on a single continuous predictor, that is, .block[ .small[ `$$\textrm{log}\left(\dfrac{\Pr[y_i \leq j| x_i]}{\Pr[y_i > j| x_i]}\right) = \beta_{0j} + \beta_{1} x_{i1}, \ \ \ j = 1, \ldots, J-1.$$` ] ] Here, `\(\beta_1 > 0\)`, actually means that a 1 unit increase in `\(x\)` makes the larger values of `\(Y\)` less likely. - This can seem counter-intuitive, thus, many books and software packages (including the `polr` function in R) often write .block[ .small[ `$$\textrm{log}\left(\dfrac{\Pr[y_i \leq j| x_i]}{\Pr[y_i > j| x_i]}\right) = \beta_{0j} - \beta_{1} x_{i1}, \ \ \ j = 1, \ldots, J-1$$` ] ] instead. We will stick with this representation. --- ## Proportional odds model - Suppose we have `\(J=5\)`, `\(\beta_1 = 1.1\)`, and `\((\beta_{01},\beta_{02},\beta_{03},\beta_{04}) = (0.5,1,2,2.5)\)` in the first representation .block[ .small[ `$$\textrm{log}\left(\dfrac{\Pr[y_i \leq j| x_i]}{\Pr[y_i > j| x_i]}\right) = \beta_{0j} + \beta_{1} x_{i1}, \ \ \ j = 1, \ldots, 4,$$` ] ] the cumulative probabilities would look like: <img src="11-proportional-odds-model_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-1-1.png" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- ## Proportional odds model - But with `\(J=5\)`, and the same values `\(\beta_1 = 1.1\)`, and `\((\beta_{01},\beta_{02},\beta_{03},\beta_{04}) = (0.5,1,2,2.5)\)` in the second representation .block[ .small[ `$$\textrm{log}\left(\dfrac{\Pr[y_i \leq j| x_i]}{\Pr[y_i > j| x_i]}\right) = \beta_{0j} - \beta_{1} x_{i1}, \ \ \ j = 1, \ldots, 4,$$` ] ] the cumulative probabilities would look like: <img src="11-proportional-odds-model_files/figure-html/unnamed-chunk-2-1.png" style="display: block; margin: auto;" /> --- ## Proportional odds model - Take our example on political ideology for instance. Suppose we fit the model .block[ .small[ `$$\textrm{log}\left(\dfrac{\Pr[\textrm{ideology}_i \leq j| x_i]}{\Pr[\textrm{ideology}_i > j| x_i]}\right) = \beta_{0j} - \beta_{1} x_{i1}, \ \ \ j = 1, \ldots, 4,$$` ] ] where `\(x\)` is an indicator variable for political party, with `\(x = 1\)` for Democrats and `\(x = 0\)` for Republicans. -- - Then, + For any `\(j\)`, `\(\beta_{1}\)` is the log-odds of a Democrat, when compared to a Republican, of being more conservative than `\(j\)` compared to being more liberal than `\(j\)`. + For any `\(j\)`, `\(e^{\beta_{1}}\)` is the odds of a Democrat, when compared to a Republican, of being more conservative than `\(j\)` compared to being more liberal than `\(j\)`. - If `\(\beta_{1} > 0\)`, a Democrat's response is more likely than a Republican's response to be in the conservative direction than in the liberal direction. --- class: center, middle # In-class analysis: move to the R script [here](https://ids-702-f19.github.io/Course-Website/slides/lec-slides/Political.R)