EViews.com

I am using stepwise regression on a data set with missing values.
Eviews 8 Sept 20 2013 build.

In the list of search regressors, I accidentally entered the log of two binary variables. In Eviews 7, the error message "Log of a non-positive value". In Eviews 8, I get results but I would not classify the results as correct.

Below log(ivy) and log(priv) are logs of binary variables.

Forward selection with log(binary) in the search regressors:
STEPLS(FTOL=0.99,BTOL=0.99) LOG(SCORE) C @ LOG(ACCEPT) LOG(ACT) LOG(ALUM) LOG(ENDOW) LOG(ENDPERSTUD) LOG(ENDPERUND) LOG(GRAD) LOG(IVY) LOG(PRIV) LOG(RET) LOG(S_F) LOG(SAT) LOG(TOPTEN) LOG(TOTENROLL) LOG(UNENROLL)

Dependent Variable: LOG(SCORE)
Method: Stepwise Regression
Date: 10/11/13 Time: 09:11
Sample: 1 202
Included observations: 199
Number of always included regressors: 1
Number of search regressors: 15
Selection method: Stepwise forwards
Stopping criterion: p-value forwards/backwards = 0.9/0.9
Note: final equation sample is larger than stepwise sample (rejected
regressors contain missing values)

LOG(SCORE) = C(1) + C(2)*LOG(ENDPERUND) + C(3)*LOG(TOTENROLL) + C(4)*LOG(ALUM) + C(5)*LOG(S_F) + C(6)*LOG(GRAD) + C(7)*LOG(ACCEPT)
Variable Prob.*
C 0.3815
LOG(ENDPERUND) 0
LOG(TOTENROLL) 0
LOG(ALUM) 0
LOG(S_F) 0.0175
LOG(GRAD) 0
LOG(ACCEPT) 0
R-squared 0.916617

Identical results with .99,.99 rather than .9,.9

Combinatorial with same search regressors
STEPLS(METHOD=COMB,FTOL=0.9,BTOL=0.9,NVARS=7) LOG(SCORE) C @ LOG(ACCEPT) LOG(ACT) LOG(ALUM) LOG(ENDOW) LOG(ENDPERSTUD) LOG(ENDPERUND) LOG(GRAD) LOG(IVY) LOG(PRIV) LOG(RET) LOG(S_F) LOG(SAT) LOG(TOPTEN) LOG(TOTENROLL) LOG(UNENROLL)

Dependent Variable: LOG(SCORE)
Method: Stepwise Regression
Date: 10/11/13 Time: 09:18
Sample: 1 202
Included observations: 199
Number of always included regressors: 1
Number of search regressors: 15
Selection method: Combinatorial
Number of search regressors: 7
Note: final equation sample is larger than stepwise sample (rejected
regressors contain missing values)

LOG(SCORE) = C(1) + C(2)*LOG(ENDPERUND) + C(3)*LOG(TOTENROLL) + C(4)*LOG(ALUM) + C(5)*LOG(S_F) + C(6)*LOG(GRAD) + C(7)*LOG(ACCEPT) + C(8)*LOG(RET)
Variable Prob.*
C 0
LOG(ENDPERUND) 0.0003
LOG(TOTENROLL) 0.0001
LOG(ALUM) 0
LOG(S_F) 0.0007
LOG(GRAD) 0
LOG(ACCEPT) 0.003
LOG(RET) 0
R-squared 0.926661

LOG(RET) is in the equation at a pvalue < .9 and yet is not in the forward stepwise. The reported sample and included number of observations are the same and I checked that the 3 missing values of each regression occur at the same observations.

At least as interesting,
STEPLS(METHOD=COMB,FTOL=0.9,BTOL=0.9,NVARS=8) LOG(SCORE) C @ LOG(ACCEPT) LOG(ACT) LOG(ALUM) LOG(ENDOW) LOG(ENDPERSTUD) LOG(ENDPERUND) LOG(GRAD) LOG(IVY) LOG(PRIV) LOG(RET) LOG(S_F) LOG(SAT) LOG(TOPTEN) LOG(TOTENROLL) LOG(UNENROLL)
produces

Dependent Variable: LOG(SCORE)
Method: Stepwise Regression
Date: 10/11/13 Time: 08:59
Sample: 1 202
Included observations: 202
Number of always included regressors: 1
Number of search regressors: 15
Selection method: Combinatorial
Number of search regressors: 8
Note: final equation sample is larger than stepwise sample (rejected
regressors contain missing values)


Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.*


C 3.887912 0.023380 166.2932 0.0000


R-squared 0.000000 Mean dependent var 3.887912


Number of combinations compared: 6435

Somehow included obs is 202 nothing excluded and no variables.
LS LOG(SCORE) C LOG(ENDPERUND) LOG(TOTENROLL) LOG(ALUM) LOG(S_F) LOG(GRAD) LOG(ACCEPT) LOG(RET) LOG(UNENROLL)
Produces

Dependent Variable: LOG(SCORE)
Method: Least Squares
Date: 10/11/13 Time: 09:30
Sample: 1 202
Included observations: 199

LOG(SCORE) = C(1) + C(2)*LOG(ENDPERUND) + C(3)*LOG(TOTENROLL) + C(4)*LOG(ALUM) + C(5)*LOG(S_F) + C(6)*LOG(GRAD) + C(7)*LOG(ACCEPT) + C(8)*LOG(RET) + C(9)*LOG(UNENROLL)

C 0
LOG(ENDPERUND) 0.0001
LOG(TOTENROLL) 0.6985
LOG(ALUM) 0
LOG(S_F) 0.0002
LOG(GRAD) 0
LOG(ACCEPT) 0.002
LOG(RET) 0
LOG(UNENROLL) 0.1138
R-squared 0.927622
Which is a 8 variable plus intercept, 199 observations, and higher R^2 than the 7 variable plus intercept above. Why didn't combinatorial at least see that model? Why did it produce NO ANSWER?

In Eviews 7 the LOG(PRIV) and LOG(IVY) produce 'log non-positive number'. In Eviews 8, we get, well, I don't know.

Data set available at http://econ413.wustl.edu/pearlmank-v8.wf1
Regressions of interest at T* what WHAT*
See table RESULTS22 if you like.

Bob

Sorry, I'm having difficulty parsing your post. I can't follow what you believe is the issue.

OK

I do a stepwise. Stops at 6 search variables with R^2 .916617

I do a combinatorial (to prove the point) selecting 7 of the 15 search variables.
That produces 7 search variables, adding log(ret) at a PVALUE of 0.00000000 and an R^2 = .926661
So the first stepwise, entering variables at .9 FAILS to enter log(ret) which has a pvalue of 0,00000000

I don't know how to make it more clear to you that stepwise is not working correctly.

Add to that, a combinatorial of 8 produces BLANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with an R^2 = 0.00000000000000000000
You have to think that is an ISSUE!

I was careful to say that this data is special, that log(ivy) and log(priv) are logs of binary variables and in Version 7 I get 'log of a non-positive number'.

I took two hours constructing and reconstructing the example, being very careful, and writing what I thought were the pertinent points.

What's the build date of your copy?

really, the first two lines of my original post

I am using stepwise regression on a data set with missing values.
Eviews 8 Sept 20 2013 build.

Sorry, missed that. 32bit or 64bit?

I cannot replicate your results...

32 bit XP

I should have mentioned STANDARD EDITION, XP service pack 3.

Your stepwise stops at log(ret) but by hand
199 observations, your version stops without LOG(UNENROLL) which enters with pvalue=.11<.99

I'm somewhat confused over which issue you're asking about.

The first issue you mentioned, I believe, was that stepls with forward selection doesn't match the results given with stepls with combinatorial. However when I did it (as my screenshot shows), I obtained the same results between the two. Can you confirm that a) my interpretation of your issue is correct, b) you do not receive the same results between the two methods?

Problem #1
Stepwise does not select variables which pass the selection criteria. In my case LOG(RET) was not entered but the pvalue passed the criterion. YOUR case, LOG(UNENROLL), was not entered but passes the criteria.

I used combinatorial to show that in MY CASE the stepwise stopped too soon. I could have done it by hand but thought better to show it via combinatorial - but MATCH is not THE issue although it is an issue.

Issue #2: the combinatorial produces a nothing NO VARIABLES selected Version 7 produces a 'log of non positive value' for these regressions.

Ah, I think I see your confusion. The key is the warning message printed at the top of the output: In your particular case the number of observations used during the stepwise procedure is 8. Not surprisingly with only 8 observations, combinatorial (forcing 8 regressors) breaks down. Similarly, a forwards routine will stop before the model becomes singular due to a lack of observations.

I am well aware of the warning message. Eviews 7 did not warn, it would not do the regression.
I now see where you say 8 observations (common sample), but why then
Number of observations: 8
Are you saying you use the cross product matrix common sample for ALL the variables, make the selection, and then EXPAND the data set for that particular regression. If so could you please point to a reference? And I would ask that the generic message be replaced with an exact message, something like 'Selection is based on ## observations while the final regression displayed is based on ## observations'. At least then someone like me will not waste time again.

From the manual: We'll take your suggestion on board.

Well I looked around at the help files but likely I did not look at the manual but only the help files. My fault I guess.

Again, do you have a references about this method to handle missing values in a stepwise proceedure?

Help files are identical to the manual.

We do not have a reference.