Timeline for Life after the Box-Cox transformation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2017 at 14:05 | history | edited | kjetil b halvorsen♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 11 characters in body
|
| Apr 17, 2012 at 16:21 | comment | added | user10525 | Another possibility is to use flexible distributions such as this one for modelling data presenting departure from normality. Of course, your model might be much more complicated, but C'est la vie. There is a funny 'psychological concept' leptokurtophobia for the 'abnormal need for normal distributions'. | |
| Mar 22, 2012 at 6:25 | answer | added | guest | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 22, 2012 at 2:13 | comment | added | whuber♦ | The cube of the height will be closely related to weight; the square of the height, to skin surface area (and thence to risk associated with dermal contact to contaminants); etc. Thus, it is not automatic that a Box-Cox parameter will be without physical meaning or completely lack interpretability. Having said that, evidently it is wise--but not necessary--to limit choices of the parameter to values that might be amenable to interpretation. | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 21:15 | comment | added | Ivan | @Aniko, yes, probably, the assumption about the normality of the date is incorrect in such a situation, and one should start looking into some other direction of solving the problem. I was actually trying to figure out whether there is a way of improving, justifying the existing model without changing it dramatically, with the only transformation of the input. | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 21:07 | comment | added | Ivan | @whuber, yes, I absolutely agree with you, of course, 1/ohm does have its own physical meaning. What I was trying to say is that, for instance, if you are interested in the human height and you measure it directly, what can logarithm or some power of your measurements do good for you? You have substituted the subject of your research with something completely different. | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 18:30 | comment | added | Aniko | If the model relies on physics and is meaningless after transformations, then you have to remove the normality assumption. | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 16:24 | comment | added | whuber♦ | Are you, for example, claiming that an ohm has a privileged physical meaning that, say, 1/ohm does not have? (This is not true: 1/ohm has a physical meaning too, in terms of conductance instead of resistance.) Often, a well-chosen Box-Cox parameter reveals a physical meaning that was not apparent in the original formulation. | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 11:38 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackStats/status/182431084385009664 | ||
| Mar 21, 2012 at 11:22 | answer | added | Peter Flom | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 10:50 | history | edited | Ivan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 characters in body
|
| Mar 21, 2012 at 9:11 | history | asked | Ivan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |