Is a model nested with itself before collapsing categorical variables?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mynameisfunk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Model Variables
Click For Summary
In the discussion, the relationship between a regression model with a categorical variable and a new model created by collapsing that variable into an indicator is examined. The key question is whether the new model with the interaction term between the collapsed variable and a continuous variable is nested within the original model. Definitions for "interaction term" and "nested model" are referenced, with the latter indicating that one model can be expressed as a subset of the terms in another. The conversation also explores whether coefficients for corresponding terms in the two models must be equal. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexities of model specification and the implications of variable transformation in regression analysis.
mynameisfunk
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
If I have a model with a categorical variable X1=0,1,2,3 and a continuous variable X2 and I have a regression model that includes an interaction between X1 and X2, then I decide I want to collapse X1 into an indicator variable where X1_new=0 if X=0 and X1_new=1 if X>=1, is my new model with an interaction term between X1_new and X2 nested with the original model?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You should quote the definitions for "interaction term" and "nested model" that you are using.

You might mean that you are dealing with a quadratic model of the form Model_A: Z = A X1 + B X2 + C X1 X2 + D with variables X1, X and another model of the form Model_B: Z = P Y1 + Q X2 + R Y1 X2 + S with variables Y1 and X2 where X2 is the same variable as in Model_A and Y1 is the function of X2 given by Y1 = 0 if X1 = 0 and Y1 = 1 otherwise.

The definition of "Model_B is nested within Model_A" might mean that there exists a way to write Model_A and model_B as quadratic models using the same set of variables such that Model_B expresses Z as a proper subset of the "terms" in Model_A. But does this also mean that a term (such as Q X2) that appears in Model_B has the same (perhaps unknown) constant coefficient as the corresponding term in Model_B (i.e. must P = Q in the previous example?).
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K