Tell me more ×
Cross Validated is a question and answer site for statisticians, data analysts, data miners and data visualization experts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Assume a general linear model $y = X \beta + \epsilon$ with observations in an $n$-vector $y$, a $(n \times p)$-design matrix $X$ of rank $p$ for $p$ parameters in a $p$-vector $\beta$. A general linear hypothesis (GLH) about $q$ of these parameters ($q < p$) can be written as $\psi = C \beta$, where $C$ is a $(q \times p)$ matrix. An example for a GLH is the one-way ANOVA hypothesis where $C \beta = 0$ under the null.

The GLH-test uses a restricted model with design matrix $X_{r}$ where the $q$ parameters are set to 0, and the corresponding $q$ columns of $X$ are removed. The unrestricted model with design matrix $X_{u}$ makes no restrictions, and thus contains $q$ free parameters more - its parameters are a superset of those from the restricted model, and the columns of $X_{u}$ are a superset of those from $X_{r}$.

$P_{u} = X_{u}'(X_{u}'X_{u})^{-1} X'$ is the orthogonal projection onto subspace $V_{u}$ spanned by $X_{u}$, and analogously $P_{r}$ onto $V_{r}$. Then $V_{r} \subset V_{u}$. The parameter estimates of a model are $\hat{\beta} = X^{+} y = (X'X)^{-1} X' y$, the predictions are $\hat{y} = P y$, the residuals are $(I-P)y$, the sum of squared residuals SSE is $||e||^{2} = e'e = y'(I-P)y$, and the estimate for $\psi$ is $\hat{\psi} = C \hat{\beta}$. The difference $SSE_{r} - SSE_{u}$ is $y'(P_{u}-P_{r})y$. Now the univariate $F$ test statistic for a GLH that is familiar (and understandable) to me is: $$ F = \frac{(SSE_{r} - SSE_{u}) / q}{\hat{\sigma}^{2}} = \frac{y' (P_{u} - P_{r}) y / q}{y^{t} (I - P_{u}) y / (n - p)} $$

There's an equivalent form that I don't yet understand: $$ F = \frac{(C \hat{\beta})' (C(X'X)^{-1}C')^{-1} (C \hat{\beta}) / q}{\hat{\sigma}^{2}} $$

As a start $$ \begin{array}{rcl} (C \hat{\beta})' (C(X'X)^{-1}C')^{-1} (C \hat{\beta}) &=& (C (X'X)^{-1} X' y)' (C(X'X)^{-1}C')^{-1} (C (X'X)^{-1} X' y) \\ ~ &=& y' X (X'X)^{-1} C' (C(X'X)^{-1}C')^{-1} C (X'X)^{-1} X' y \end{array} $$

  • How do I see that $P_{u} - P_{r} = X (X'X)^{-1} C' (C(X'X)^{-1}C')^{-1} C (X'X)^{-1} X'$?
  • What is the explanation for / motivation behind the numerator of the 2nd test statistic? - I can see that $C(X'X)^{-1}C'$ is $V(C \hat{\beta}) / \sigma^{2} = (\sigma^{2} C(X'X)^{-1}C') / \sigma^{2}$, but I can't put these pieces together.
share|improve this question

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

For your second question, you have $\mathbf{y}\sim N(\mathbf{X}\boldsymbol{\beta},\sigma^2 \mathbf{I})$ and suppose you're testing $\mathbf{C}\boldsymbol{\beta}=\mathbf{0}$. So, we have that (the following is all shown through matrix algebra and properties of the normal distribution -- I'm happy to walk through any of these details)

$ \mathbf{C}\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}\sim N(\mathbf{0}, \sigma^2 \mathbf{C(X'X)^{-1}C'}). $

And so,

$ \textrm{Cov}(\mathbf{C}\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})=\sigma^2 \mathbf{C(X'X)^{-1}C}. $

which leads to noting that

$ F_1 = \frac{(\mathbf{C}\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}})'[\mathbf{C(X'X)^{-1}C'}]^{-1}\mathbf{C}\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}}{\sigma^2}\sim \chi^2 \left(q\right). $

You get the above result because $F_1$ is a quadratic form and by invoking a certain theorem. This theorem states that if $\mathbf{x}\sim N(\boldsymbol{\mu}, \boldsymbol{\Sigma})$, then $\mathbf{x'Ax}\sim \chi^2 (r,p)$, where $r=\textrm{rank}(A)$ and $p=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\mu}'\mathbf{A}\boldsymbol{\mu}$, iff $\mathbf{A}\boldsymbol{\Sigma}$ is idempotent. [The proof of this theorem is a bit long and tedious, but it's doable. Hint: use the moment generating function of $\mathbf{x'Ax}$].

So, since $\mathbf{C}\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ is normally distributed, and the numerator of $F_1$ is a quadratic form involving $\mathbf{C}\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$, we can use the above theorem (after proving the idempotent part).

Then,

$ F_2 = \frac{\mathbf{y}'[\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{X(X'X)^{-1}X'}]\mathbf{y}}{\sigma^2}\sim \chi^2(n-p-1) $

Through some tedious details, you can show that $F_1$ and $F_2$ are independent. And from there you should be able to justify your second $F$ statistic.

share|improve this answer
Thanks for your fast reply! Could you please explain the "which leads to noting that" step to $F_{1}$ a little bit further? That's the one I'm not getting... – caracal Oct 18 '11 at 17:26
1  
@caracal Sure. I edited my response to add in some details. – Mike Wierzbicki Oct 18 '11 at 17:41
I'll accept this answer, but I'd still be very happy about an answer to my first question as well - literature tips are of course welcome! – caracal Oct 20 '11 at 12:57

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.