# Why is the type I error (power?!) for shapiro.test on studentized residuals on lm is 10% and for regular residuals is just 5%?

I understand that the residuals from a regression model are not i.i.d. Hence, checking if they are normal (even when we know it is the case), should be a problem since they are dependent. The residuals are not independent since they need to keep the two conditions that their sum is 0 and that they are orthogonal to x. Also, they do not have the same distribution since the error depends on the specific x.

That said, when I run shapiro test on residuals I see that the error is 5% for regular residuals and almost 10% for studentized residuals (while in both cases the i.i.d is not kept). So one could say that since the values are not i.i.d then shapiro test should reject in both cases, which means that the power for the first case is 5% and for the studentized case is 10%.

Any insight into why this is? (and also if there is a way to account for the dependency, other than a larger sample size)

Reproducible code (See comments for output):

get_lm_resid_normality_p_value <- function(fit, resid_function = MASS::stdres) {
# library(MASS)
library(dplyr)
library(broom)
# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studentized_residual
resids <- fit %>% resid_function(.)
if(length(resids) < 5000 & length(resids) > 3) {
resids %>% shapiro.test %>% glance %>% pull(p.value) %>% return
} else {
return(NA)
}
}

n <- 30
R <- 10000
x <- 1:n

# stdres
set.seed(1234)
pv <- numeric(R)
for(i in 1:R) {
y <- x + rnorm(n)
fit <- lm(y ~ x)
pv[i] <- get_lm_resid_normality_p_value(fit)
}
mean(pv < 0.05)
# 0.0503 # this is o.k.

# resid
set.seed(1234)
pv <- numeric(R)
for(i in 1:R) {
y <- x + rnorm(n)
fit <- lm(y ~ x)
pv[i] <- get_lm_resid_normality_p_value(fit, resid_function = resid)
}
mean(pv < 0.05)
# 0.05  # this is o.k.

# MASS::studres
set.seed(1234)
pv <- numeric(R)
for(i in 1:R) {
y <- x + rnorm(n)
fit <- lm(y ~ x)
pv[i] <- get_lm_resid_normality_p_value(fit, resid_function = MASS::studres)
}
mean(pv < 0.05)
# 0.0992  # this is NOT o.k. (!)

# a way to fix the problem is to only use half the data for building the model. But is there no more efficient way to undo the dependency structure?
set.seed(1234)
pv <- numeric(R)
for(i in 1:R) {
y <- x + rnorm(n)
xx <- data.frame(x, y)
fit <- lm(y ~ x, data = xx[1:15,])

pv[i] <- shapiro.test(xx[-c(1:15),"y"] - predict(fit, newdata = xx[-c(1:15),]))\$p.value
}
mean(pv < 0.05)
# 0.0487  # this works since the residuals of the predicted ys are i.i.d

• Studentized residuals are certainly not iid. – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Jun 26 '19 at 2:37
• In wikipedia it says: The residuals are not the true errors, but estimates, based on the observable data. When the method of least squares is used to estimate {\displaystyle \alpha _{0}} \alpha _{0} and {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}} \alpha _{1}, then the residuals {\displaystyle {\widehat {\varepsilon \,}}} {\displaystyle {\widehat {\varepsilon \,}}}, unlike the errors {\displaystyle \varepsilon } \varepsilon , cannot be independent since they satisfy the two constraints ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studentized_residual#Motivation – Tal Galili Jun 26 '19 at 10:44
• I'm sorry you deleted this, because there is an interesting underlying issue here - what should you expect the distribution of standardized residuals to look like when you have a simple model (such as the one in your example) at small sample sizes (like n=3,4,5,6). There's one or two posts on site already that deal with the even simpler model y~1, which has some interesting results at very small n. – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Jun 26 '19 at 22:20
• Thanks. I can't do it right now but I'll try to track one down tomorrow. – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Jun 27 '19 at 7:40
• @Glen_b: Did tomorrow arrive? – kjetil b halvorsen Jul 16 '19 at 9:25