问题
I am new to glmnet and playing with the penalty.factor option. The vignette says that it "Can be 0 for some variables, which implies no shrinkage, and that variable is always included in the model." And the longer PDF document has code. So I expected that running a regression with intercept = TRUE and no constant in x would be the same as with intercept = FALSE and a constant in x with penalty.factor = 0. But the code below shows that it is not: the latter case has an intercept of 0 and the other two coefficients are 20% larger than in the former.
library("glmnet")
set.seed(7)
# penalty for the intercept
intercept_penalty <- 0
# Simulate data with 2 features
num_regressors <- 2
num_observations <- 100
X <- matrix(rnorm(num_regressors * num_observations),
ncol = num_regressors,
nrow = num_observations)
# Add an intercept in the right-hand side matrix: X1 = (intercept + X)
X1 <- cbind(matrix(1, ncol = 1, nrow = num_observations), X)
# Set random parameters for the features
beta <- runif(1 + num_regressors)
# Generate observations for the left-hand side
Y <- X1 %*% beta + rnorm(num_observations) / 10
# run OLS
ols <- lm(Y ~ X)
coef_ols <- coef(ols)
# Run glmnet with an intercept in the command, not in the matrix
fit <- glmnet(y = Y,
x = X,
intercept = T,
penalty.factor = rep(1, num_regressors),
lambda = 0)
coef_intercept_equal_true <- coef(fit)
# run glmnet with an intercept in the matrix with a penalty
# factor of intercept_penalty for the intercept and 1 for the rest
fit_intercept_equal_false <- glmnet(y = Y,
x = X1,
intercept = F,
penalty.factor = c(intercept_penalty, rep(1, num_regressors)),
lambda = 0)
coef_intercept_equal_false <- coef(fit_intercept_equal_false)
# Compare all three methods in a data frame
# For lasso_intercept_equal_false, the index starts at 2 because
# position 1 is reserved for intercepts, which is missing in this case
comparison <- data.frame(original = beta,
ols = coef_ols,
lasso_intercept_equal_true = coef_intercept_equal_true[1:length(coef_intercept_equal_true)],
lasso_intercept_equal_false = coef_intercept_equal_false[2:length(coef_intercept_equal_false)]
)
comparison$difference <- comparison$lasso_intercept_equal_false - comparison$lasso_intercept_equal_true
comparison
Furthermore, the discrepancy for this example is the same with different penalty factors for the intercept term, whether intercept_penalty equals 0, 1, 3000, -10, etc. The discrepancy is similar with a positive penalty, e.g. lambda = 0.01.
If this is not a bug, what is the proper usage of penalty.factor?
回答1:
I contacted the author, who confirmed that this is a bug and added that it is on his list of bug fixes. In the meantime, a workaround is to center the regressors, e.g. with
fit_centered <- glmnet(y = Y,
x = scale(X1, T, F),
intercept = F,
lambda = 0)
And in this case, the penalty factor does not matter. Here is a revised script that compares OLS, LASSO with intercept, LASSO without intercept, and LASSO with centered regressors:
library("glmnet")
set.seed(7)
# Simulate data with 2 features
num_regressors <- 2
num_observations <- 100
X <- matrix(rnorm(num_regressors * num_observations),
ncol = num_regressors,
nrow = num_observations)
# Add an intercept in the right-hand side matrix: X1 = (intercept + X)
X1 <- cbind(matrix(1, ncol = 1, nrow = num_observations), X)
# Set random parameters for the features
beta <- runif(1 + num_regressors)
# Generate observations for the left-hand side
Y <- X1 %*% beta + rnorm(num_observations) / 10
# run OLS
ols <- lm(Y ~ X)
coef_ols <- coef(ols)
# Run glmnet with an intercept in the command, not in the matrix
fit <- glmnet(y = Y,
x = X,
intercept = T,
penalty.factor = rep(1, num_regressors),
lambda = 0)
coef_intercept <- coef(fit)
# run glmnet with an intercept in the matrix with a penalty
# factor of 0 for the intercept and 1 for the rest
fit_no_intercept <- glmnet(y = Y,
x = X1,
intercept = F,
lambda = 0)
coef_no_intercept <- coef(fit_no_intercept)
# run glmnet with an intercept in the matrix with a penalty
# factor of 0 for the intercept and 1 for the rest
# If x is centered, it works (even though y is not centered). Center it with:
# X1 - matrix(colMeans(X1), nrow = num_observations, ncol = 1 + num_regressors, byrow = T)
# or with
# X1_centered = scale(X1, T, F)
fit_centered <- glmnet(y = Y,
x = scale(X1, T, F),
intercept = F,
lambda = 0)
coef_centered <- coef(fit_centered)
# Compare all three methods in a data frame
# For lasso_intercept and the others, the index starts at 2 because
# position 1 is reserved for intercepts, which is missing in this case
comparison <- data.frame(ols = coef_ols,
lasso_intercept = coef_intercept[1:length(coef_intercept)],
lasso_no_intercept = coef_no_intercept[2:length(coef_no_intercept)],
lasso_centered = coef_centered[2:length(coef_centered)]
)
comparison$diff_intercept <- comparison$lasso_intercept - comparison$lasso_no_intercept
comparison$diff_centered <- comparison$lasso_centered - comparison$lasso_intercept
comparison
The answer:
ols lasso_intercept lasso_no_intercept lasso_centered diff_intercept diff_centered
(Intercept) 0.9748302 0.9748302 0.0000000 0.0000000 0.9748302 -9.748302e-01
X1 0.6559541 0.6559541 0.7974851 0.6559541 -0.1415309 2.220446e-16
X2 0.7986957 0.7986957 0.9344306 0.7986957 -0.1357348 4.440892e-16
For LASSO with centered regressors, the estimated intercept is 0 but the other coefficients are the same as the LASSO with intercept.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/49495494/glmnet-is-different-with-intercept-true-compared-to-intercept-false-and-with-pen