Predicted vs. Actual plot

Question

I'm new to R and statistics and haven't been able to figure out how one would go about plotting predicted values vs. Actual values after running a multiple linear regression. I have come across similar questions (just haven't been able to understand the code). I would greatly appreciate it if you explain the code. This is what I have done so far:

# Attach file containing variables and responses
q <- read.csv("C:/Users/A/Documents/Design.csv")
attach(q)
# Run a linear regression
model <- lm(qo~P+P1+P4+I)
# Summary of linear regression results
summary(model)

The plot of predicted vs. actual is so I can graphically see how well my regression fits on my actual data.

Yours is a Linear Regression model so your R-sqr should give the model accuracy. It's not a typical classification problem to have predict vs actual plot — amrrs, Aug 29 '16 at 14:33
Just as @Ben Bolker just posted, you can for instance use `abline` and `plot` Further reading: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help//2013-February/347479.html — nilsole, Aug 29 '16 at 14:39
@amrrs yes that's one method but I would like to see a graphical representation of it. — John, Aug 30 '16 at 12:45

score 22 · Accepted Answer · edited May 23 '17 at 11:54

22

It would be better if you provided a reproducible example, but here's an example I made up:

set.seed(101)
dd <- data.frame(x=rnorm(100),y=rnorm(100),
                 z=rnorm(100))
dd$w <- with(dd,
     rnorm(100,mean=x+2*y+z,sd=0.5))

It's (much) better to use the data argument -- you should almost never use attach() ..

 m <- lm(w~x+y+z,dd)
 plot(predict(m),dd$w,
      xlab="predicted",ylab="actual")
 abline(a=0,b=1)

edited May 23 '17 at 11:54

Community

1
1

answered Aug 29 '16 at 14:37

Ben Bolker

211,554
25
370
453

1

Hi @Ben Bolker. Thanks for the reply. Just to confirm that I understood. After running the regression I just need to use the predict argument in order to get r to generate predicted values using my regression and then plot my predicted values against my calculated/experimental values, is that correct? – John Aug 30 '16 at 12:42
You can also call the fitted values directly from your model using `m$fitted.values` instead of using `predict()`. – Seanosapien Apr 26 '22 at 18:44
It's best practice (IMO) to use accessors such as `predict()` whenever possible; they are often more flexible and are safe to use across a range of model types (and will still work if the internal structure of the model objects changes in the future). – Ben Bolker Apr 26 '22 at 19:09

score 11 · Answer 2 · answered Aug 29 '16 at 14:51

11

Besides predicted vs actual plot, you can get an additional set of plots which help you to visually assess the goodness of fit.

--- execute previous code by Ben Bolker ---

par(mfrow = c(2, 2))
plot(m)

answered Aug 29 '16 at 14:51

Lourdes Hernández

291
1
9

score 2 · Answer 3 · answered Nov 27 '19 at 13:23

A tidy way of doing this would be to use modelsummary::augment():

library(tidyverse)
library(cowplot)
library(modelsummary)

set.seed(101)
# Using Ben's data above:
dd <- data.frame(x=rnorm(100),y=rnorm(100),
                 z=rnorm(100))
dd$w <- with(dd,rnorm(100,mean=x+2*y+z,sd=0.5))

m <- lm(w~x+y+z,dd)

m %>% augment() %>% 
  ggplot()  + 
  geom_point(aes(.fitted, w)) + 
  geom_smooth(aes(.fitted, w), method = "lm", se = FALSE, color = "lightgrey") + 
labs(x = "Actual", y = "Fitted") + 
  theme_bw()

This will work nicely for deep nested regression lists especially.

To illustrate this, consider some nested list of regressions:

Reglist <- list()

Reglist$Reg1 <- dd %>% do(reg = lm(as.formula("w~x*y*z"), data = .)) %>% mutate( Name = "Type 1")
Reglist$Reg2 <- dd %>% do(reg = lm(as.formula("w~x+y*z"), data = .)) %>% mutate( Name = "Type 2")
Reglist$Reg3 <- dd %>% do(reg = lm(as.formula("w~x"), data = .)) %>% mutate( Name = "Type 3")
Reglist$Reg4 <- dd %>% do(reg = lm(as.formula("w~x+z"), data = .)) %>% mutate( Name = "Type 4")

Now is where the power of the above tidy plotting framework comes to life...:

Graph_Creator <- function(Reglist){

  Reglist %>% pull(reg) %>% .[[1]] %>% augment() %>% 
    ggplot()  + 
    geom_point(aes(.fitted, w)) + 
    geom_smooth(aes(.fitted, w), method = "lm", se = FALSE, color = "lightgrey") + 
    labs(x = "Actual", y = "Fitted", 
         title =  paste0("Regression Type: ", Reglist$Name) ) + 
    theme_bw()
}

Reglist %>% map(~Graph_Creator(.)) %>% 
  cowplot::plot_grid(plotlist = ., ncol = 1)

I'm still skeptical about the tidyverse way of doing things... ggplot is great and there is no looking back. But the rest seems an unnecessary deviation from R style. E.g. why `m %>% augment() %>% ...`? I feel that with base R + [data.table](https://github.com/Rdatatable/data.table) you get the same power without too much on the way of usual R. Not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand all the enthusiasm I see around for tidyverse... — dariober, May 18 '21 at 12:36
Read aloud the code again and replace %>% with "then". It reads like a novel, which makes reading and understanding someone else's code (as well as past you's) so much easier. data.table lacks any reasonable synctatic interpretation (your code will make sense to you today, but will be a task interpreting it in future). — Nick, May 19 '21 at 04:57

score 1 · Answer 4 · answered Mar 29 '21 at 16:03

Same as @Ben Bolker's solution but getting a ggplot object instead of using base R

#first generate the dd data set using the code in Ben's solution, then... 

require(ggpubr)
m <- lm(w~x+y+z,dd)

ggscatter(x = "prediction",
          y = "actual",
          data = data.frame(prediction = predict(m),
                            actual = dd$w)) +
  geom_abline(intercept = 0,
              slope = 1)

Predicted vs. Actual plot

4 Answers4