Skip to main content
added 114 characters in body
Source Link
Antoni Parellada
  • 26.9k
  • 18
  • 122
  • 230

ey = resid(lm(y ~ x2 + x3)) calculates the variance of y not explained by the regressors $x_2$ and $x_3$. On the other hand, ex = resid(lm(x ~ x2 + x3)) gives you the variance of $x$ not explained by $x_2$ and $x_3$.

Therefore, regressing ey over ex will calculate the

$\text{variance of }y \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

explained by the

$\text{variance of }x_1 \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

So you have eliminated the contribution of $x_2$ and $x_3$, and you are really just calculating the variance of $y$ explained by $x_1$, after having regressed both variables (dependent an independent) over $x_2$ and $x_2$ to effectively eliminate the effect of these two additional explanatory variables.

Now you just have to keep in mind that the regression through the origin with one single regressor is $\hat \beta=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}Y_iX_i}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i^2}$, and that the $-1$ in coef(lm(ey ~ ex - 1)) is the call for the OLS without intercept.

The reason why the intercept is eliminated is because the intercept is a regressor in its own right. Even if we didn't specify it in the call for ey and ex the regression over $1$ was there in the model matrix.

The package {swirl} in R contains step-by-step practice in this technique of picking one regressor, replacing all other variables by the residuals of their regressions against that one.

ey = resid(lm(y ~ x2 + x3)) calculates the variance of y not explained by the regressors $x_2$ and $x_3$. On the other hand, ex = resid(lm(x ~ x2 + x3)) gives you the variance of $x$ not explained by $x_2$ and $x_3$.

Therefore, regressing ey over ex will calculate the

$\text{variance of }y \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

explained by the

$\text{variance of }x_1 \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

So you have eliminated the contribution of $x_2$ and $x_3$, and you are really just calculating the variance of $y$ explained by $x_1$, after having regressed both variables (dependent an independent) over $x_2$ and $x_2$ to effectively eliminate the effect of these two additional explanatory variables.

Now you just have to keep in mind that the regression through the origin with one single regressor is $\hat \beta=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}Y_iX_i}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i^2}$, and that the $-1$ in coef(lm(ey ~ ex - 1)) is the call for the OLS without intercept.

The reason why the intercept is eliminated is because the intercept is a regressor in its own right.

The package {swirl} in R contains step-by-step practice in this technique of picking one regressor, replacing all other variables by the residuals of their regressions against that one.

ey = resid(lm(y ~ x2 + x3)) calculates the variance of y not explained by the regressors $x_2$ and $x_3$. On the other hand, ex = resid(lm(x ~ x2 + x3)) gives you the variance of $x$ not explained by $x_2$ and $x_3$.

Therefore, regressing ey over ex will calculate the

$\text{variance of }y \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

explained by the

$\text{variance of }x_1 \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

So you have eliminated the contribution of $x_2$ and $x_3$, and you are really just calculating the variance of $y$ explained by $x_1$, after having regressed both variables (dependent an independent) over $x_2$ and $x_2$ to effectively eliminate the effect of these two additional explanatory variables.

Now you just have to keep in mind that the regression through the origin with one single regressor is $\hat \beta=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}Y_iX_i}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i^2}$, and that the $-1$ in coef(lm(ey ~ ex - 1)) is the call for the OLS without intercept.

The reason why the intercept is eliminated is because the intercept is a regressor in its own right. Even if we didn't specify it in the call for ey and ex the regression over $1$ was there in the model matrix.

The package {swirl} in R contains step-by-step practice in this technique of picking one regressor, replacing all other variables by the residuals of their regressions against that one.

added 188 characters in body
Source Link
Antoni Parellada
  • 26.9k
  • 18
  • 122
  • 230

ey = resid(lm(y ~ x2 + x3)) calculates the variance of y not explained by the regressors $x_2$ and $x_3$. On the other hand, ex = resid(lm(x ~ x2 + x3)) gives you the variance of $x$ not explained by $x_2$ and $x_3$.

Therefore, regressing ey over ex will calculate the

$\text{variance of }y \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

explained by the

$\text{variance of }x_1 \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

So you have eliminated the contribution of $x_2$ and $x_3$, and you are really just calculating the variance of $y$ explained by $x_1$, after having regressed both variables (dependent an independent) over $x_2$ and $x_2$ to effectively eliminate the effect of these two additional explanatory variables.

Now you just have to keep in mind that the regression through the originregression through the origin with one single regressor is $\hat \beta=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}Y_iX_i}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i^2}$, and that the $-1$ in coef(lm(ey ~ ex - 1)) is the call for the OLS without intercept.

The reason why the intercept is eliminated is because the intercept is a regressor in its own right.

The package {swirl} in R contains step-by-step practice in this technique of picking one regressor, replacing all other variables by the residuals of their regressions against that one.

ey = resid(lm(y ~ x2 + x3)) calculates the variance of y not explained by the regressors $x_2$ and $x_3$. On the other hand, ex = resid(lm(x ~ x2 + x3)) gives you the variance of $x$ not explained by $x_2$ and $x_3$.

Therefore, regressing ey over ex will calculate the

$\text{variance of }y \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

explained by the

$\text{variance of }x_1 \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

So you have eliminated the contribution of $x_2$ and $x_3$, and you are really just calculating the variance of $y$ explained by $x_1$, after having regressed both variables (dependent an independent) over $x_2$ and $x_2$ to effectively eliminate the effect of these two additional explanatory variables.

Now you just have to keep in mind that the regression through the origin with one single regressor is $\hat \beta=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}Y_iX_i}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i^2}$, and that the $-1$ in coef(lm(ey ~ ex - 1)) is the call for the OLS without intercept.

ey = resid(lm(y ~ x2 + x3)) calculates the variance of y not explained by the regressors $x_2$ and $x_3$. On the other hand, ex = resid(lm(x ~ x2 + x3)) gives you the variance of $x$ not explained by $x_2$ and $x_3$.

Therefore, regressing ey over ex will calculate the

$\text{variance of }y \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

explained by the

$\text{variance of }x_1 \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

So you have eliminated the contribution of $x_2$ and $x_3$, and you are really just calculating the variance of $y$ explained by $x_1$, after having regressed both variables (dependent an independent) over $x_2$ and $x_2$ to effectively eliminate the effect of these two additional explanatory variables.

Now you just have to keep in mind that the regression through the origin with one single regressor is $\hat \beta=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}Y_iX_i}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i^2}$, and that the $-1$ in coef(lm(ey ~ ex - 1)) is the call for the OLS without intercept.

The reason why the intercept is eliminated is because the intercept is a regressor in its own right.

The package {swirl} in R contains step-by-step practice in this technique of picking one regressor, replacing all other variables by the residuals of their regressions against that one.

Source Link
Antoni Parellada
  • 26.9k
  • 18
  • 122
  • 230

ey = resid(lm(y ~ x2 + x3)) calculates the variance of y not explained by the regressors $x_2$ and $x_3$. On the other hand, ex = resid(lm(x ~ x2 + x3)) gives you the variance of $x$ not explained by $x_2$ and $x_3$.

Therefore, regressing ey over ex will calculate the

$\text{variance of }y \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

explained by the

$\text{variance of }x_1 \text{ not explained by }x_2\text{ and} x_3$

So you have eliminated the contribution of $x_2$ and $x_3$, and you are really just calculating the variance of $y$ explained by $x_1$, after having regressed both variables (dependent an independent) over $x_2$ and $x_2$ to effectively eliminate the effect of these two additional explanatory variables.

Now you just have to keep in mind that the regression through the origin with one single regressor is $\hat \beta=\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}Y_iX_i}{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}X_i^2}$, and that the $-1$ in coef(lm(ey ~ ex - 1)) is the call for the OLS without intercept.