ML Interview Q Series: How would you decide on the importance of variables for the Multivariate Regression model?
📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.
Comprehensive Explanation
A multivariate regression model can generally be written as
Here, y is the target variable, x_j for j=1,...,p are the explanatory variables, beta_j are the regression coefficients, and beta_0 is the intercept term. The residual epsilon represents the error not explained by the linear combination of x_j. Interpreting the importance of each variable involves considering both the magnitude and the statistical significance of beta_j, along with other diagnostic measures.
One common approach to gauge the importance of a variable is to check the p-value associated with its beta_j coefficient. If the regression assumes normal errors and the model is properly specified, each coefficient is subjected to a t-test. A small p-value (below a chosen significance threshold) suggests that the corresponding variable significantly contributes to explaining y. However, p-values alone can sometimes be misleading if assumptions are violated or if many variables are tested simultaneously without correction.
Another approach is to look at the standardized coefficients. A standardized coefficient is obtained by scaling each variable to have mean zero and unit variance before fitting the model, which makes beta_j more directly comparable across different predictors. This helps in contrasting the relative impact of each predictor on the target because each x_j is measured on the same scale.
Some practitioners also rely on comparing the change in adjusted R^2 or other metrics when a variable is added or removed from the model. If the removal of a variable results in a substantial drop in the model’s overall performance (e.g., measured by mean squared error, R^2, or adjusted R^2), that variable is deemed important. Similarly, partial dependence measures can capture how each variable influences the predicted outcome while marginalizing over other predictors.
Regularization techniques such as Lasso (L1 penalty) or Ridge (L2 penalty) can provide insights into variable importance. Lasso tends to shrink some coefficients to zero, effectively performing feature selection, while Ridge shrinks coefficients but typically keeps them non-zero. By examining which variables remain with non-zero coefficients under L1 regularization, or by seeing how much coefficients shrink under L2, one can gain a sense of how strongly each variable contributes to predicting y.
Permutation-based feature importance is another robust method, often used in more flexible models. Even in a linear setting, one can permute the values of each variable and note the change in performance. If permuting a particular variable causes a large deterioration in predictive accuracy, it is likely an important variable.
Multicollinearity can confound efforts to determine variable importance. If two or more variables are highly correlated, then their individual coefficients may not be stable, and small changes in the data or the model can drastically change their estimated coefficients and p-values. Checking Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) or correlation matrices helps identify correlated features. In scenarios with high collinearity, domain knowledge or using techniques like Principal Component Regression can help better partition the shared variance among related predictors.
In practice, the importance of variables should be considered not only by statistical metrics but also by interpretability and domain expertise. Even if a variable shows a smaller coefficient or borderline p-value, it could still be relevant from a causal or business perspective. Ultimately, combining multiple indicators — such as p-values, standardized coefficients, regularization paths, permutation importances, and domain understanding — gives the most reliable assessment of variable importance.
Could you elaborate on how p-values help measure variable importance?
p-values for the regression coefficients are associated with the hypothesis test that beta_j = 0 versus the alternative that beta_j != 0. If the model assumptions hold, a small p-value implies strong evidence that x_j influences y in a statistically significant way. In a linear regression framework, the p-value typically comes from a t-test that quantifies how many standard errors away the estimated coefficient is from zero. The lower the p-value, the higher the confidence that this coefficient is not zero and thus that the corresponding variable has an effect on y.
However, p-values can be affected by violations of linear regression assumptions. If the errors are not normally distributed, if there is heteroscedasticity, or if variables are correlated, these p-values may be unreliable. Furthermore, when dealing with a large number of predictors, multiple testing problems arise, and one must correct for the fact that many p-values are being computed simultaneously.
Why do we sometimes prefer standardized regression coefficients over raw coefficients?
When the original predictors have vastly different scales, the absolute values of the raw coefficients do not directly indicate which variable is more important. A variable measured in large units may naturally have a smaller coefficient compared to a variable measured in smaller units, yet the latter might have a stronger effect in practical terms. By standardizing each variable to have mean zero and unit variance, all predictors reside on the same scale, so the magnitude of beta_j directly reflects how many standard deviations the target will change given one standard deviation change in x_j. This standardized view can make it much easier to compare the relative importance of different predictors.
Are there advanced or alternative ways to measure feature importance beyond coefficient-based measures?
Permutation-based feature importance is often used in more complex models, such as decision trees or ensembles. Yet, it can also be applied to linear models. The idea is to shuffle the values of one variable across the dataset (breaking its relationship with y) and measure how much worse the model performs. A large performance drop indicates strong dependence on that variable for generating predictions.
Partial dependence plots show how the predicted outcome changes with different values of one predictor, while marginalizing over the other predictors. These plots can help reveal non-linear relationships and are useful for interpretability. Techniques like Shapley values from cooperative game theory decompose individual predictions into contributions from each feature and offer a model-agnostic view of feature importance.
Furthermore, domain-based feature engineering and domain knowledge can guide you to more meaningful features or transformations. Understanding the underlying processes can also reveal why certain variables interact with each other and offer a more holistic interpretation of importance than any single statistical measure might provide.
What are some limitations of using p-values for determining variable importance in high-dimensional settings?
One concern is that in high-dimensional settings (where the number of predictors is large relative to the sample size), the regression model might overfit, and the coefficient estimates can become unstable. As a result, individual t-statistics and p-values might not correctly reflect the influence of each feature. Moreover, repeated hypothesis testing across many variables increases the chance of false positives. Multiple comparison corrections (like the Bonferroni or Benjamini-Hochberg procedures) mitigate this risk but can be conservative or reduce sensitivity. Another challenge is that in high-dimensional situations, the assumption that each variable has enough data coverage to estimate a coefficient accurately may fail, thus rendering straightforward p-value interpretations questionable.
How do regularization methods like L1 and L2 help with feature importance?
L1 regularization (Lasso) adds an absolute penalty term to the loss function, which drives the sum of absolute values of coefficients toward zero. As you increase the penalty, some coefficients shrink exactly to zero, effectively removing those variables from the model. Observing which coefficients remain non-zero as you vary the regularization strength can reveal which variables have the strongest predictive impact.
L2 regularization (Ridge) introduces the sum of the squares of the coefficients in the penalty, shrinking the magnitude of all coefficients. Although this rarely drives coefficients exactly to zero, variables whose coefficients remain relatively larger under heavier L2 penalties are often more influential in predicting the target. Both methods help combat overfitting and can improve generalization, while also ranking or filtering variables in terms of their contribution to the model’s performance.
Why is it important to consider domain knowledge in addition to statistical measures?
Statistical and model-based metrics can highlight correlations or associations between variables and the target. However, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and even strong associations can be artifacts of the data collection process. Domain expertise can interpret whether a variable makes practical sense in driving the outcome, whether it is a proxy for something else, or if there are latent factors not captured by the model. Incorporating domain knowledge often helps in constructing or selecting features that better reflect the real-world processes under study. It also enables more informed decisions in cases where multiple correlated variables appear relevant from a purely statistical standpoint but only one or two have a meaningful causal interpretation.
Below are additional follow-up questions
How do outliers influence the ranking of variable importance in linear regression?
Outliers can distort regression coefficient estimates because linear regression is sensitive to extreme values. A single outlier with very large x_j or y can pull the fitted line, causing certain coefficients to inflate or deflate in ways that are not representative of the majority of the data. This distortion can change the relative p-values, standardized coefficients, or even which variables appear to matter most.
When outliers are present, it is crucial to:
Investigate whether they are legitimate data points or due to measurement errors.
Use robust regression techniques (e.g., RANSAC or Huber regression) if outliers are frequent and not simply erroneous. These methods reduce the outlier effect on coefficient estimation.
Examine diagnostic plots such as residuals vs. fitted values, Q-Q plots, and leverage plots to identify points that disproportionately influence the model.
If outliers are deemed valid, they still might highlight important real-world processes. For instance, in financial data, extreme values might represent major market events that should not be dismissed. On the other hand, if these outliers are simply errors or anomalies unrelated to the problem at hand, removing or correcting them can restore more accurate assessments of variable importance.
What role does model specification error play in determining variable importance, and how can we detect it?
Model specification errors occur if the assumed functional form of the regression model is incorrect or if key predictors and interaction terms are omitted. In such cases, the coefficient estimates and their accompanying importance measures may be biased.
Ways to detect and address specification errors include:
Residual diagnostics: Plotting residuals vs. fitted values or vs. each predictor can reveal non-linear patterns or missing interactions.
Using polynomial or interaction terms: If data suggest non-linearity, adding polynomial terms or interactions between predictors can capture more complex relationships.
Cross-validation and external validation: If the model systematically performs poorly on test sets, it might be due to a missing or misspecified component.
Domain expertise: Experts can indicate if certain covariates or functional forms are theoretically necessary but missing from the model.
When a crucial predictor is omitted, the importance allocated to correlated variables might be overstated or understated. Correct model specification ensures that each variable’s coefficient reflects its true influence rather than absorbing the effect of unmodeled factors.
How might we handle categorical variables and measure their importance in a linear model?
Categorical variables (often referred to as factors) are typically transformed using one-hot encoding or dummy variables. A single categorical feature with k levels becomes k-1 dummy variables in a typical regression setup, with one level as the reference category.
Assessing the importance of a categorical variable can involve:
Looking at the joint significance of the set of dummy variables representing that categorical feature. For instance, an F-test can evaluate whether all coefficients for that feature are zero.
Examining each dummy coefficient to see how different categories shift the outcome relative to the reference category.
Using standardized or partial regression plots for each dummy variable to explore the relative impact of those categorical levels.
Potential pitfalls include:
Choosing an inappropriate reference category that might skew interpretation.
Dealing with high-cardinality variables, leading to an explosion in the number of dummy variables and potential overfitting. In that case, regularization or domain-driven grouping might help reduce dimensionality.
Handling unordered vs. ordered categorical variables differently. Ordered categories (e.g., ratings on a scale 1–5) might benefit from a single numeric predictor if linearity is appropriate, or from polynomial transformations if non-linearity is expected.
What is the role of partial correlation in measuring variable importance, and how does it differ from simple correlation?
Partial correlation between x_j and y controls for the influence of other variables, measuring the direct relationship between x_j and y once the effects of other predictors are accounted for. By contrast, a simple correlation between x_j and y may be confounded by other correlated predictors.
A common formula for partial correlation between variables A and B while controlling for a third variable C is:
Here, r_{AB} is the simple correlation between A and B, r_{AC} is the correlation between A and C, and r_{BC} is the correlation between B and C. A large partial correlation indicates that the predictor of interest explains additional variance in y that is not explained by the other variables.
Advantages of partial correlation:
It reveals whether a predictor has a unique linear association with y, beyond other predictors.
It helps identify whether apparent relationships in simple correlations are spurious.
Pitfalls include:
Computation complexity in high-dimensional datasets, as you need to partial out multiple variables.
Sensitivity to outliers and multicollinearity, similar to other regression-based measures.
How do we interpret variable importance in the presence of strong interaction effects among predictors?
When predictors interact, the effect of x_j on y depends on the level of another predictor x_k. In a standard linear regression with interaction terms, the coefficient of x_j alone does not fully represent x_j's impact — you also have to consider the interaction term beta_{j,k} x_j x_k.
Scenarios to consider:
If beta_{j,k} is large, x_j's effect on y might significantly differ depending on x_k. Failing to account for the interaction can underestimate or overestimate the importance of x_j.
Interaction can cause a predictor to look unimportant in isolation but become highly relevant when combined with another feature.
Visual tools, such as interaction plots or partial dependence plots, help interpret how x_j and x_k jointly affect y.
When interactions are present, a single measure like the main-effect coefficient may not be sufficient to gauge importance. One must analyze both the main effects and the interactions collectively to understand how each variable contributes to the model’s predictions.
In what cases might we see contradictory signals between different measures of variable importance, and how can we reconcile them?
Different measures (e.g., p-values, standardized coefficients, permutation importance, regularization paths) may yield conflicting conclusions about which variables matter most if:
The dataset has strong multicollinearity, causing inflated variances of coefficients and unstable p-values.
The model does not fully capture non-linear relationships or interactions, meaning linear coefficient-based measures differ from permutation-based or model-agnostic measures.
The sample size is small or the data are noisy, leading to high variability in estimates.
Different regularization penalties emphasize distinct aspects of the data (e.g., L1 pushing coefficients to zero vs. L2 shrinking them uniformly).
Reconciling these signals involves:
Investigating correlations and potential interactions to understand how variables relate to each other and the outcome.
Conducting sensitivity analyses by fitting different models and comparing variable rankings.
Consulting domain knowledge to check if certain findings are plausible from a theoretical or practical standpoint.
Using robust cross-validation to ensure results generalize beyond a single dataset split.
How do we measure variable importance in generalized linear models (GLMs) with different link functions, such as logistic regression?
In logistic regression or other GLMs, the coefficient beta_j indicates the effect of x_j on the log-odds (for logistic) or on the expected value (for Poisson, with a log link). Interpreting raw coefficients as direct importance can be less intuitive than in linear regression.
Common approaches to assess importance include:
Looking at the change in deviance or likelihood when adding or removing a variable. This provides a model-based measure of how much each variable reduces prediction error.
Using standardized coefficients by scaling the predictors, so the magnitude of beta_j can be interpreted on a comparable scale. This is more complex in the logistic case, as it relates to changes in the log-odds, but still offers relative comparisons between predictors.
Implementing a permutation-based importance measure, shuffling each predictor to see how much worse the model’s accuracy or other classification metrics (AUC, F1 score) become.
Employing regularization techniques (L1 or L2 for logistic regression), examining which variables remain non-zero or are shrunk less.
Adopting partial dependence or Shapley value plots for insight into how each predictor influences the predicted probability, controlling for others.
Potential pitfalls include:
Over-emphasizing coefficients in logistic regression without considering that they reflect changes in log-odds, which might not directly translate to probabilities in a simple linear way.
Interaction terms and non-linearity can still play a role, especially if the link function does not capture some systematic pattern in the data.
Balancing the trade-off between model complexity and interpretability, since more complex models can better capture relationships but might complicate the interpretation of individual variable importance.