Virginia Morera Pujol <morera.virginia at gmail.com> writes:
In trying a spatial model with spatstat I am running into a conceptual
problem. It might be more of a general modelling doubt than a specific
spatial problem, but I hope someone can help.
I am running a ppm() model that includes two covariates (as pixel
one is primary productivity at sea, and the other is distance to a point
that is not included in the pattern window. That means there is no 0
the range of values goes from 400 to 1400 approx. When I run the model
look at the var-covar matrix using 'vcov(model, what = "corr")' , there
a very strong correlation (around -0.85) between the intercept and this
covariate. I am not sure that this is a problem, but [...]
This is about the correlation between *estimates* of the model
coefficients - in this case, the correlation between the estimated
intercept and the estimated coefficient of the distance covariate.
Extremely high correlations could cause problems with the identifiability
of the model, but this is probably not a problem here. Moderately high
correlations suggest that the t-tests for individual parameters (given in
the printout for the model) are not independent. If we want to select the
'significant' covariates, we shouldn't use the model printout to discard
more than one variable at a time.
I have tried a couple of things just in case:
1/ centering the covariate values around the mean just changes the sign
the correlation (from -0.85 to +0.85 approx).
2/ normalizing the covariate values, so the values go from 0 to 1 makes
correlation between this covariate and the intercept almost 1 (0.99) It
also makes the effect of this covariate three orders of magnitude higher
than the effect of the other covariate, which didn't happen before and
not expected from the data.
Such transformations will change the correlation. Roughly speaking, that's
because when you add a constant to the distance covariate, you are adding a
multiple of the intercept onto the covariate.
When you say the 'effect' of the covariate has increased, do you mean the
coefficient of the covariate has increased, or the *effect term* (=
coefficient x covariate value) has increased? I'd be surprised if this
happens - the models should be equivalent as regards their fitted
intensity, etc.
Adrian Baddeley
Prof Adrian Baddeley DSc FAA
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia