Ch.

2 Exercises: Statistical Learning

Conceptual
1.
(a)

• Better : A large sample size means a flexible model will be able to better fit the data.

(b)

• Worse : A flexible model would likely overfit. Flexible methods generally do better when large datasets
are available.

(c)

• Better : Flexible methods perform better on non-linear datasets as they have more degrees of freedom
to approximate a non-linear

(d)

• Worse : A flexible model would likely overfit, due to more closely fitting the noise in the error terms
than an inflexible method. In other words, the data points will be far from 𝑓 (ideal function to describe
the data) if the variance of the error terms is very high. This hints that f is linear and so a simpler
model would better be able to estimate 𝑓.

2.
(a)

• Regression;The response in this case is quantitative and so this is a regression problem.

• Inference; We want to understand how the predictors impact the salary of a CEO, and not actually
predict the salary of a CEO. Therefore, inference is our aim.
• n=500. p=profit, number of employees, industry.

(b)

• Classification; response(success or failure) is a binary value.

• Prediction; we want to know predicted value of the target.
• n=20. p=price, marketing budget, competition price and 10 other variables.

(c)

• Regression; response(% change in the USD/Euro) is a quantitative value.

• Prediction, we want to predict the response.

1
 • n=52. p=% change in US market, % change in UK market, % change in German market.

3.
(a)

(b)

• Var(E) is the irreducible error and the test predictions cannot be better than this, therefore it is a
straight line. Test MSE reduces to an optimum point as increased flexibility means a better fit, with
further increases leading to overfitting. Training MSE continues to reduce as more flexibility means
the method can very closely fit the training data. Variance increases as the method tends to overfit as
flexibility increases (fitting training data too well and not generalizing to test data). Generally, bias is
reduced as the flexibility increases due to the method being better able to fit the data.

4.
(a)
Classification methods would be useful for applications where the outcomes are to be classified
into a category, this can be a binary classification or a multi-class classification. Some areas
where classification could be useful:

• Breast cancer prediction: Given a set of predictors such as a mammogram scan, age, family history,
lifestyle and other variables, and a response of Yes(has cancer) and No(does not have cancer) – we can
then train a model to predict whether a patient has breast cancer.
• Classifying species of plants: Given a set of images of a plant, a model can be trained that will
classify that plant into one of the trained species. This is a multi-class classification problem. The
response would be the species name and the predictors would be images of that species.

2
 • Fraud detection: Classify whether a transaction is fraudulent, given data like the transaction amount,
location, purchased item or service, previous customer transactions etc. The response would be “Yes”
or “No”, and our aim is to make a prediction.
• Stock price: Classify whether a stock will go up or down in price the next day given a set of financial
data and news from the preceding week. The aim is to make a prediction.

(b)
Regression methods are useful when we have a quantitative response; that is where we need
to predict a numerical value for our response. Some areas where regression could be useful
are:

• House price factors: Given a set of predictors such as location, house features, median income for
the area and so on and the house price as the response/target, we can train a model to infer the impact
of those variables on house prices.
• Salary: Predict the salary of an individual given their education, work history, skillsets and other
relevant data (age, sex, etc.). The response is the salary amount.
• Sales: Predict unit sales of a product given marketing data such as TV, Radio or Internet advert
expenditure, and use it to infer the importance of each advertising method. The response is the unit
sales of the product.
• Driving Insurance premium: Given a set of variables such as the drivers history, age, type of
vehicle, expected yearly mileage and the premium as the response, we can train a model to predict the
insurance premium for new customers.

(c)
Cluster analysis is useful in cases where we do not have a target response available – i.e. unsu-
pervised learning. We can aim to ascertain whether observations can be classed into distinct
groups or understand if there are any underlying relationship between variables. Some areas
where this can be useful are:

• Tissue classification: : Clustering can be used to separate different types of tissue in medical images.
This can be useful in identifying groups of tissue that are not normal and need further study.
• Market research: Differentiate a group of people within a city into distinct market segments to
increase marketing effectiveness or identify new opportunities. Given data such as incomes, location,
age, sex, opinion polls and so on for a city, we can segment the city into different consumer areas.
• Image segmentation: Separate an image into different regions to make object recognition easier. For
example, segmenting image frames from a video camera in a car into ‘other vehicles’, ‘humans’, ‘road
signs’ and so on can help ADAS (Advanced driver-assistance systems) in vehicles make the correct
decision.
• Gaming market segmentation: Given a set observations with variables such as age, location,
income, sex, hours spent gaming, gaming devices used and so on. We could use cluster analysis to
see if these observations fall into distinct groups. If there are distinct groupings, then it could be
helpful with further study – say for example one grouping could represent casual gamers and the other
hardcore gamers, and another one could be newer gamers (say people over the age 60).

5. & 6.

• Flexible methods work well when the underlying function is non-linear. The predictions in general
have a lower bias but can have a higher variance, as these models are more likely to overfit the data.

3
 • Less flexible methods do not tend to overfit the data but can have a high bias when the underlying
function is non-linear. They can also use fewer observations and parameters, particularly when it is
assumed that the underlying function is linear. Flexible methods tend to require a larger number of
observations and parameters, and can lead to overfitting (higher variance).
• Flexible methods (non-parametric methods) are preferable when we make no assumptions about the
function to be estimated.Most real-life relationships are non-linear and so a non-parametric approach
is better suited to modelling them. Flexible models by their nature are more complex and less inter-
pretable than their linear counterparts, so even though their predictions might be more accurate, we
may not be able to explain why it has made those predictions (a black box model).
• Less flexible methods (parametric) are useful if we assume or know that the underlying function is
linear. As a linear relationship is assumed, the model needs to predict fewer parameters than a non-
parametric method. Additionally, these models are more interpretable, and so will be preferred when
we are interested in making inferences or the interpretability of the results.

7. (a) The Euclidean distance is the straight line distance between two points. This can be calculated using
the Pythagorean theorem.
For 3D space we have:

𝑑(𝑝, 𝑞) = √(𝑝1 − 𝑞1 )2 + (𝑝2 − 𝑞2 )2 + (𝑝3 − 𝑞3 )2

Using the above formula, we get the following distances:

𝑑(1, 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡) = 3
𝑑(2, 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡) = 2
𝑑(3, 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡) = 3.16
𝑑(4, 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡) = 2.24
𝑑(5, 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡) = 1.41
𝑑(6, 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡) = 1.73

(b)

• Green; as nearest single observation is green.

(c)

• Red; as nearest three observations are green, red and red.The probability of the test point belonging
to red is 2/3 and green is 1/3. Therefore, the prediction is red.

(d)

• For highly non-linear boundaries, we would expect the best value of K to be small. Smaller values of K
result in a more flexible KNN model, and this will produce a decision boundary that is non-linear. A
larger K would mean more data points are considered by the KNN model and this means its decision
boundary is closer to a linear shape.

Applied
8.

4
library(ISLR)
#library(ggplot2)

(a) (b)

college.rownames = rownames(College)

(c) i.

summary(College)

## Private Apps Accept Enroll Top10perc

## No :212 Min. : 81 Min. : 72 Min. : 35 Min. : 1.00
## Yes:565 1st Qu.: 776 1st Qu.: 604 1st Qu.: 242 1st Qu.:15.00
## Median : 1558 Median : 1110 Median : 434 Median :23.00
## Mean : 3002 Mean : 2019 Mean : 780 Mean :27.56
## 3rd Qu.: 3624 3rd Qu.: 2424 3rd Qu.: 902 3rd Qu.:35.00
## Max. :48094 Max. :26330 Max. :6392 Max. :96.00
## Top25perc F.Undergrad P.Undergrad Outstate
## Min. : 9.0 Min. : 139 Min. : 1.0 Min. : 2340
## 1st Qu.: 41.0 1st Qu.: 992 1st Qu.: 95.0 1st Qu.: 7320
## Median : 54.0 Median : 1707 Median : 353.0 Median : 9990
## Mean : 55.8 Mean : 3700 Mean : 855.3 Mean :10441
## 3rd Qu.: 69.0 3rd Qu.: 4005 3rd Qu.: 967.0 3rd Qu.:12925
## Max. :100.0 Max. :31643 Max. :21836.0 Max. :21700
## Room.Board Books Personal PhD
## Min. :1780 Min. : 96.0 Min. : 250 Min. : 8.00
## 1st Qu.:3597 1st Qu.: 470.0 1st Qu.: 850 1st Qu.: 62.00
## Median :4200 Median : 500.0 Median :1200 Median : 75.00
## Mean :4358 Mean : 549.4 Mean :1341 Mean : 72.66
## 3rd Qu.:5050 3rd Qu.: 600.0 3rd Qu.:1700 3rd Qu.: 85.00
## Max. :8124 Max. :2340.0 Max. :6800 Max. :103.00
## Terminal S.F.Ratio perc.alumni Expend
## Min. : 24.0 Min. : 2.50 Min. : 0.00 Min. : 3186
## 1st Qu.: 71.0 1st Qu.:11.50 1st Qu.:13.00 1st Qu.: 6751
## Median : 82.0 Median :13.60 Median :21.00 Median : 8377
## Mean : 79.7 Mean :14.09 Mean :22.74 Mean : 9660
## 3rd Qu.: 92.0 3rd Qu.:16.50 3rd Qu.:31.00 3rd Qu.:10830
## Max. :100.0 Max. :39.80 Max. :64.00 Max. :56233
## Grad.Rate
## Min. : 10.00
## 1st Qu.: 53.00
## Median : 65.00
## Mean : 65.46
## 3rd Qu.: 78.00
## Max. :118.00

ii.

# Pair plot of first 5 variables

pairs(College[,1:5])

5
 0 10000 30000 50000 0 2000 4000 6000

1.8
Private

1.4
1.0
40000

Apps
20000
0

20000
Accept

10000
0
6000
4000

Enroll
2000
0

80
60
Top10perc

40
20
0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 5000 15000 25000 0 20 40 60 80

iii.

# Boxplots of outstate vs Private.

boxplot(Outstate~Private, data = College)

6
 20000
15000
Outstate

10000
5000

No Yes

Private

iv.

# New variable 'Elite'

Elite = rep("No",nrow(College))
Elite[College$Top10perc>50] = "Yes"
college.df = data.frame(College, Elite)

summary(college.df)

## Private Apps Accept Enroll Top10perc

## No :212 Min. : 81 Min. : 72 Min. : 35 Min. : 1.00
## Yes:565 1st Qu.: 776 1st Qu.: 604 1st Qu.: 242 1st Qu.:15.00
## Median : 1558 Median : 1110 Median : 434 Median :23.00
## Mean : 3002 Mean : 2019 Mean : 780 Mean :27.56
## 3rd Qu.: 3624 3rd Qu.: 2424 3rd Qu.: 902 3rd Qu.:35.00
## Max. :48094 Max. :26330 Max. :6392 Max. :96.00
## Top25perc F.Undergrad P.Undergrad Outstate
## Min. : 9.0 Min. : 139 Min. : 1.0 Min. : 2340
## 1st Qu.: 41.0 1st Qu.: 992 1st Qu.: 95.0 1st Qu.: 7320
## Median : 54.0 Median : 1707 Median : 353.0 Median : 9990
## Mean : 55.8 Mean : 3700 Mean : 855.3 Mean :10441
## 3rd Qu.: 69.0 3rd Qu.: 4005 3rd Qu.: 967.0 3rd Qu.:12925

7
## Max. :100.0 Max. :31643 Max. :21836.0 Max. :21700
## Room.Board Books Personal PhD
## Min. :1780 Min. : 96.0 Min. : 250 Min. : 8.00
## 1st Qu.:3597 1st Qu.: 470.0 1st Qu.: 850 1st Qu.: 62.00
## Median :4200 Median : 500.0 Median :1200 Median : 75.00
## Mean :4358 Mean : 549.4 Mean :1341 Mean : 72.66
## 3rd Qu.:5050 3rd Qu.: 600.0 3rd Qu.:1700 3rd Qu.: 85.00
## Max. :8124 Max. :2340.0 Max. :6800 Max. :103.00
## Terminal S.F.Ratio perc.alumni Expend
## Min. : 24.0 Min. : 2.50 Min. : 0.00 Min. : 3186
## 1st Qu.: 71.0 1st Qu.:11.50 1st Qu.:13.00 1st Qu.: 6751
## Median : 82.0 Median :13.60 Median :21.00 Median : 8377
## Mean : 79.7 Mean :14.09 Mean :22.74 Mean : 9660
## 3rd Qu.: 92.0 3rd Qu.:16.50 3rd Qu.:31.00 3rd Qu.:10830
## Max. :100.0 Max. :39.80 Max. :64.00 Max. :56233
## Grad.Rate Elite
## Min. : 10.00 No :699
## 1st Qu.: 53.00 Yes: 78
## Median : 65.00
## Mean : 65.46
## 3rd Qu.: 78.00
## Max. :118.00

• There are 78 elite universities.

boxplot(Outstate~Elite, data = college.df)

8
 20000
15000
Outstate

10000
5000

No Yes

Elite

v.

par(mfrow=c(2,2))
hist(College$Apps, xlim=c(0,25000), xlab = "Applications", main = "Apps using default bin sizes")
hist(College$Apps, xlim=c(0,25000), breaks=25, xlab = "Applications",
main = "Apps using smaller bin sizes")
hist(College$Top10perc, breaks=25, xlab = "Pct. new students from top 10% of H.S. class",
main="Top10Perc")
hist(College$Outstate, xlab="Out-of-state tuition",ylab="Amount",main="Outstate")

9
 100 200 300 400 500 600
Apps using default bin sizes Apps using smaller bin sizes

400
300
Frequency

Frequency

200
100
0

0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Applications Applications

Top10Perc Outstate

150
100 120

100
80
Frequency

Amount
60

50
40
20
0

0 20 40 60 80 100 5000 10000 15000 20000

Pct. new students from top 10% of H.S. class Out−of−state tuition

• Histogram of Apps(Number of applications received) is highly right skewed. This shows that most
universities received 5000 or fewer applications. The mean number of applications received will also
be heavily skewed.
• Histogram for Top10Perc(Number of new students who are the top 10% of their class) is also right
skewed; this shows that only a few universities get a majority of their new students from this cohort.

mean(college.df$Apps)

## [1] 3001.638

median(college.df$Apps)

## [1] 1558

vi.

# Exploring the relationship between Grad.Rate(Graduation Rate) and S.F.Ratio(Student/faculty ratio).

plot(college.df$S.F.Ratio, college.df$Grad.Rate,

10
 xlab = "Student to Faculty Ratio", ylab = "Graduation Rate",
main = "Plot of Grad.Rate vs S/F Ratio")

# Linear regression line.

abline(lm(college.df$Grad.Rate~college.df$S.F.Ratio), col="red")

# Local regression line with smoothing of 25%.

loessMod = loess(Grad.Rate ~ S.F.Ratio, data=college.df, span=0.25)
j = order(college.df$S.F.Ratio)
lines(college.df$S.F.Ratio[j],loessMod$fitted[j], col="blue")

Plot of Grad.Rate vs S/F Ratio

120
100
80
Graduation Rate

60
40
20

10 20 30 40

Student to Faculty Ratio

• The results suggest a negative linear relationship between the graduation rate of students and the
student to faculty ratio at universities.
• As the student to faculty ratio increases, we can expect students to have a lower graduation rate.

9.
(a)

• Quantitative: mpg,cylinders,displacement,horsepower, weight, acceleration, year.

• Qualitative: name, origin.

11
(b)

sapply(Auto[,1:7], range)

## mpg cylinders displacement horsepower weight acceleration year

## [1,] 9.0 3 68 46 1613 8.0 70
## [2,] 46.6 8 455 230 5140 24.8 82

(c)

# Mean and standard deviation.

sapply(Auto[,1:7], mean)

## mpg cylinders displacement horsepower weight acceleration

## 23.445918 5.471939 194.411990 104.469388 2977.584184 15.541327
## year
## 75.979592

sapply(Auto[,1:7], sd)

## mpg cylinders displacement horsepower weight acceleration

## 7.805007 1.705783 104.644004 38.491160 849.402560 2.758864
## year
## 3.683737

(d)

# Remove 10th to 85th rows from Auto.

Auto.reduced = Auto[-c(10:84),]
sapply(Auto.reduced[,1:7], range)

## mpg cylinders displacement horsepower weight acceleration year

## [1,] 11.0 3 68 46 1649 8.5 70
## [2,] 46.6 8 455 230 4997 24.8 82

sapply(Auto.reduced[,1:7], mean)

## mpg cylinders displacement horsepower weight acceleration

## 24.368454 5.381703 187.753943 100.955836 2939.643533 15.718297
## year
## 77.132492

sapply(Auto.reduced[,1:7], sd)

## mpg cylinders displacement horsepower weight acceleration

## 7.880898 1.658135 99.939488 35.895567 812.649629 2.693813
## year
## 3.110026

(e)

12
pairs(Auto[,1:7])

3 4 5 6 7 8 50 100 150 200 10 15 20 25

30
mpg

10
3 4 5 6 7 8

cylinders

300
displacement

100
150

horsepower
50

3500
weight

1500
25
20

acceleration
15
10

82
78
year

74
70
10 20 30 40 100 300 1500 3000 4500 70 74 78 82

cor(Auto[,1:7])

## mpg cylinders displacement horsepower weight

## mpg 1.0000000 -0.7776175 -0.8051269 -0.7784268 -0.8322442
## cylinders -0.7776175 1.0000000 0.9508233 0.8429834 0.8975273
## displacement -0.8051269 0.9508233 1.0000000 0.8972570 0.9329944
## horsepower -0.7784268 0.8429834 0.8972570 1.0000000 0.8645377
## weight -0.8322442 0.8975273 0.9329944 0.8645377 1.0000000
## acceleration 0.4233285 -0.5046834 -0.5438005 -0.6891955 -0.4168392
## year 0.5805410 -0.3456474 -0.3698552 -0.4163615 -0.3091199
## acceleration year
## mpg 0.4233285 0.5805410
## cylinders -0.5046834 -0.3456474
## displacement -0.5438005 -0.3698552
## horsepower -0.6891955 -0.4163615
## weight -0.4168392 -0.3091199
## acceleration 1.0000000 0.2903161
## year 0.2903161 1.0000000

13
 • From the pair plot and the correlation data, we can state there exists linear relationships between some
of the variables.
• For example, mpg has strong negative linear relationships with displacement, cylinders and weight.
That is we can expect the mpg of the car to decrease as their displacement and cylinders increase.
• mpg has a positive correlation with year, and this suggests that newer models tend to have higher mpg
than older ones.

(f)

• Both the plots and the correlation data suggests we can predict mpg.
• An increase in the variables displacement, cylinders and weight will lead to a reduced mpg.
• Newer models year tend to have higher mpg.

10.
(a)

library(MASS)

?Boston

dim(Boston)

## [1] 506 14

• 506 rows of suburbs or towns and 14 columns of predictors.

(b)

# Pair plots of some variables

pairs(~crim+nox+dis+tax+medv, data = Boston)

14
 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 200 300 400 500 600 700

80
60
crim

40
20
0
0.8

nox
0.6
0.4

10
8
dis

6
4
2
600

tax
400
200

50
40
30
medv

20
10
0 20 40 60 80 2 4 6 8 10 12 10 20 30 40 50

• crim seems to have a negative linear relationship with medv and dis.
• nox has a negative linear relationship with dis.
• dis has a positive linear relationship with medv.

(c)

# Correlation coefficients between CRIM and all other variables.

cor(Boston[-1],Boston$crim)

## [,1]
## zn -0.20046922
## indus 0.40658341
## chas -0.05589158
## nox 0.42097171
## rm -0.21924670
## age 0.35273425
## dis -0.37967009
## rad 0.62550515
## tax 0.58276431
## ptratio 0.28994558
## black -0.38506394

15
## lstat 0.45562148
## medv -0.38830461

• There are some correlations between crim and other variables, but they are not as strong as some of
the relationships we observed in the Auto dataset.
• crim has a negative linear relationship with medv, dis and black.
• crim has a positive linear relationship with indus, nox, rad and tax.

(d)

# Suburbs with crime rate higher than 2 s.d from the mean(higher than 95% of suburbs).
High.Crime = Boston[which(Boston$crim > mean(Boston$crim) + 2*sd(Boston$crim)),]
range(Boston$crim) ; mean(Boston$crim) ; sd(Boston$crim)

## [1] 0.00632 88.97620

## [1] 3.613524

## [1] 8.601545

• There are 16 suburbs with a crime rate higher than 95% of the other suburbs.
• Some suburbs have extremely high rates of crime (5-8 s.d from the mean).
• The range is very wide, it goes from a rate of near zero to 89.

# Suburbs with tax rates higher than 2 s.d from the mean.
High.Tax = Boston[which(Boston$tax > mean(Boston$tax) + 2*sd(Boston$tax)),]
range(Boston$tax)

## [1] 187 711

• There are no suburbs with a tax rate higher than 2 s.d. from the mean. This seems reasonable as
property tax rates are designed not to be extremely drastic.
• The range is narrower than the crime rate.
• Some suburbs do have tax rates higher than 1 s.d.(higher than 65% of suburbs) from the mean.

?Boston

# Suburbs with pupil teacher ratio higher than 2 s.d from the mean.
High.PT = Boston[which(Boston$ptratio > mean(Boston$ptratio) + 2*sd(Boston$ptratio)),]
range(Boston$ptratio)

## [1] 12.6 22.0

• There are no suburbs with a high pupil to teacher ratio, and this a reasonable outcome as educational
laws limit the numbers of teacher or students per class/school.
• The range in quite narrow, and and all pupil teacher ratios lie within 2 s.d. of the mean.
• Some pupil teacher ratios are higher than 1 s.d.

(e)

16
sum(Boston$chas==1)

## [1] 35

• 35 suburbs/towns bound the Charles river.

(f)

median(Boston$ptratio)

## [1] 19.05

(g)

which(Boston$medv == min(Boston$medv))

## [1] 399 406

• There are two suburbs (399 & 406) that have the lowest median property values.

# Values of other predictors for suburb 399

Boston[399,]

## crim zn indus chas nox rm age dis rad tax ptratio black lstat
## 399 38.3518 0 18.1 0 0.693 5.453 100 1.4896 24 666 20.2 396.9 30.59
## medv
## 399 5

range(Boston$lstat)

## [1] 1.73 37.97

range(Boston$ptratio)

## [1] 12.6 22.0

• crim is more than 2 s.d. above the mean - very high crime rates in this suburb. Both ptratioand
lstat are close to their maximum values.

(h)

# More than 7 rooms

sum(Boston$rm > 7)

## [1] 64

17
# More than 8 rooms
sum(Boston$rm > 8)

## [1] 13

summary(Boston)

## crim zn indus chas

## Min. : 0.00632 Min. : 0.00 Min. : 0.46 Min. :0.00000
## 1st Qu.: 0.08204 1st Qu.: 0.00 1st Qu.: 5.19 1st Qu.:0.00000
## Median : 0.25651 Median : 0.00 Median : 9.69 Median :0.00000
## Mean : 3.61352 Mean : 11.36 Mean :11.14 Mean :0.06917
## 3rd Qu.: 3.67708 3rd Qu.: 12.50 3rd Qu.:18.10 3rd Qu.:0.00000
## Max. :88.97620 Max. :100.00 Max. :27.74 Max. :1.00000
## nox rm age dis
## Min. :0.3850 Min. :3.561 Min. : 2.90 Min. : 1.130
## 1st Qu.:0.4490 1st Qu.:5.886 1st Qu.: 45.02 1st Qu.: 2.100
## Median :0.5380 Median :6.208 Median : 77.50 Median : 3.207
## Mean :0.5547 Mean :6.285 Mean : 68.57 Mean : 3.795
## 3rd Qu.:0.6240 3rd Qu.:6.623 3rd Qu.: 94.08 3rd Qu.: 5.188
## Max. :0.8710 Max. :8.780 Max. :100.00 Max. :12.127
## rad tax ptratio black
## Min. : 1.000 Min. :187.0 Min. :12.60 Min. : 0.32
## 1st Qu.: 4.000 1st Qu.:279.0 1st Qu.:17.40 1st Qu.:375.38
## Median : 5.000 Median :330.0 Median :19.05 Median :391.44
## Mean : 9.549 Mean :408.2 Mean :18.46 Mean :356.67
## 3rd Qu.:24.000 3rd Qu.:666.0 3rd Qu.:20.20 3rd Qu.:396.23
## Max. :24.000 Max. :711.0 Max. :22.00 Max. :396.90
## lstat medv
## Min. : 1.73 Min. : 5.00
## 1st Qu.: 6.95 1st Qu.:17.02
## Median :11.36 Median :21.20
## Mean :12.65 Mean :22.53
## 3rd Qu.:16.95 3rd Qu.:25.00
## Max. :37.97 Max. :50.00

summary(subset(Boston, rm > 8))

## crim zn indus chas

## Min. :0.02009 Min. : 0.00 Min. : 2.680 Min. :0.0000
## 1st Qu.:0.33147 1st Qu.: 0.00 1st Qu.: 3.970 1st Qu.:0.0000
## Median :0.52014 Median : 0.00 Median : 6.200 Median :0.0000
## Mean :0.71879 Mean :13.62 Mean : 7.078 Mean :0.1538
## 3rd Qu.:0.57834 3rd Qu.:20.00 3rd Qu.: 6.200 3rd Qu.:0.0000
## Max. :3.47428 Max. :95.00 Max. :19.580 Max. :1.0000
## nox rm age dis
## Min. :0.4161 Min. :8.034 Min. : 8.40 Min. :1.801
## 1st Qu.:0.5040 1st Qu.:8.247 1st Qu.:70.40 1st Qu.:2.288
## Median :0.5070 Median :8.297 Median :78.30 Median :2.894
## Mean :0.5392 Mean :8.349 Mean :71.54 Mean :3.430
## 3rd Qu.:0.6050 3rd Qu.:8.398 3rd Qu.:86.50 3rd Qu.:3.652
## Max. :0.7180 Max. :8.780 Max. :93.90 Max. :8.907

18
## rad tax ptratio black
## Min. : 2.000 Min. :224.0 Min. :13.00 Min. :354.6
## 1st Qu.: 5.000 1st Qu.:264.0 1st Qu.:14.70 1st Qu.:384.5
## Median : 7.000 Median :307.0 Median :17.40 Median :386.9
## Mean : 7.462 Mean :325.1 Mean :16.36 Mean :385.2
## 3rd Qu.: 8.000 3rd Qu.:307.0 3rd Qu.:17.40 3rd Qu.:389.7
## Max. :24.000 Max. :666.0 Max. :20.20 Max. :396.9
## lstat medv
## Min. :2.47 Min. :21.9
## 1st Qu.:3.32 1st Qu.:41.7
## Median :4.14 Median :48.3
## Mean :4.31 Mean :44.2
## 3rd Qu.:5.12 3rd Qu.:50.0
## Max. :7.44 Max. :50.0

• Relatively low crim, lstat and much higher medv when comparing the IQR range.

19