4
$\begingroup$

I have a Poisson model with the following true relationship:

$$E(y \mid x, z)=exp(bx+cz)$$

Is it possible to apply here some nonlinear version of the Frisch-Waugh-Lovell theorem?

(Note that an earlier post tried to ask the same question, but the question's text contained errors -- like 1) not specifying the conditional mean correctly and 2) maybe being too specific about how the nonlinear version of FWL would look like -- and did not receive any pertinent replies.)

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Not an answer, but some doubts:

What drives the FWL theorem is that regressors and residuals are exactly orthogonal when estimating by OLS. Since that need not be the case for other estimation techniques (but see the discussion in the comments below related to this particular problem!), I am not sure if, and if so how, such a result could carry over.

What is maybe more, standard FWL involves three (sets of) OLS regressions:

  1. Dependent variable on regressors to be partialled out
  2. Other regressors on regressors to be partialled out
  3. Residuals of 1. on residuals of 2.

How would we carry over this logic to Poisson regression? We can sure run a Poisson regression like in 1. and collect the corresponding residuals.

However, in 2., it will typically not be the case that the other regressors also are count variables, so that a Poisson regression would not make sense here (and even not work if these regressors contain negative values). Similarly, the residuals of 1. will also contain negative values, such that a Poisson regression in 3. would again not work.

So, "nonlinear FWL" cannot be just replacing OLS regressions by Poisson regressions. We can instead run OLS regressions in 2. and 3., but then there is, as far as I can see, no reason to expect any type of equivalence.

That said, this code suggests a certain closeness, which may however also be due to all true coefficients being zero:

n <- 3000000
x <- rnorm(n)
z <- rnorm(n)
y <- rpois(n, lambda=1)

poisson.full <- glm(y ~ x+z, family = 'poisson')

poisson.short <- glm(y ~ z, family = 'poisson')
others <- lm(x ~ z)
summary(lm(resid(poisson.short) ~ resid(others)-1))

summary(poisson.full)
$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A minor correction: in canonical link GLMs (including Poisson) fit with MLE, the residuals are orthogonal to the predictors. That comes directly from the score equations. $\endgroup$
    – Noah
    Commented Oct 16 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ arxiv.org/pdf/1903.01690 Section 3 of this article seems to have some interesting related discussion. I will try to understand it better soon $\endgroup$
    – lippi
    Commented Oct 16 at 16:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Noah, thanks, I did not think about that properly. I made a correction - modifying my code with something like ` cor(resid(poisson.short), z)` however "only" suggests correlations close to zero. I assume that is related to the lack of analytical solution to the maximization of the likelihood? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 17 at 5:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ChristophHanck I meant the "response" residuals, i.e., residuals(poisson.short, type = "response"), which are equal to y - fitted(poisson.short). By default, resid() produces "deviance" residuals (I don't really know what those are). I assume the FWL theorem is about response residuals, though it's likely the case that they are all the same for Gaussian GLMs with an identity link. $\endgroup$
    – Noah
    Commented Oct 17 at 6:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.