0
$\begingroup$

The first slide is the denifition of simple linear regression model, the second slides is an example [![definition][1]][1] question The second question I have is I still have difficulties in understanding Confidence interval for mean and Confidence interval and Prediction interval. For the example above, if I was correct,the standard deviation would be 0.0634 then y3 would be :y3~(10,0.0634^2), so we can say we are 95% sure y3 would be from 10-2*0.0634 to 10+2*0.0634, why we still need Confidence interval for mean and and Prediction interval? formula Why we can't just use standard deviation s from sample directly

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

You should distinguish two concepts; (1) you have a ''model'', i.e. assumptions that you make about what the ''real world'' is like and (2) you estimate the model from sample data.

Let us use an example: I think that the weight ($W$) of a person depends on his length ($L$). This seems like a reasonable assumption, however it is not precise enought to make it a ''model''. Therefore I will assume that $W = \beta_0 + \beta_1 L$. This looks like a ''good'' model but there is something missing: if this would be the description of the ''real world'' then it would mean that all persons with length $L=1.8$ meter would have exactly the same weight namely $\beta_0+\beta_1 \times 1.8$. I am sure that you will agree that not all the people with $L=1.8$ have all the same weight, so we have to ''complete'' this model. The additional assumption is that the people with $L=1.8$ must not all have the same weight, it may be different but we assume that the weights of all people with length $L=1.8$ are normally distributed with a mean $\beta_0 + \beta_1 \times 1.8$ and an (unknown) standard deviation $\sigma$ and we assume that this $\sigma$ is the same for all persons.

So our model becomes $ W = \beta_0 + \beta_1 L + \epsilon$, where $\epsilon \sim N(0;\sigma)$ or, equivalently $W \sim N(\beta_0 + \beta_1 L;\sigma)$.

The values for $\beta_0, \beta_1, \sigma$ are unknown values. To have ''an idea'' about these values, we will have to estimate their values from a sample (you need a sample because you can not measure and weight all the people in the world). So let us take a sample of e.g. $n=50$ persons and measure their weight ($W_i, i=1,2,\dots,n$) and length weight ($L_i, i=1,2,\dots,n$). With ordinary least squares regression (OLS) one can now compute ''estimates'' for these unknown values, i.e. $\hat{\beta_0}, \hat{\beta_1}, \hat{\sigma}$. The ''hat'' shows that these are estimates, so they are not the ''true'' values, these ''true values'' are unknown.

If I would take another sample of 50 (other) persons, then I will obviously find other values for these estimates ... So they are not known exactly, they behave ''random''.

If I now want to ''predict'' the weight of a person of 1.75m, then my guess would be $\hat{W} = \hat{\beta_0} + \hat{\beta_1} \times 1.75$.

But the $\hat{\beta_0}$ and $\hat{\beta_1}$, are obtained from a sample, and if I draw another sample then I will find other values for these $\hat{\beta_i}$ and therefore also other values for my prediction $\hat{W}$. So this $\hat{W}$ is also behaving ''random''.

So the prediction $\hat{W}$ will change everytime you draw another sample of $n=50$ persons. Therefore you should compute a confidence interval.

The theory on linear regression learns that the distribution of $\hat{W}$ and this finding can be used to construct confidence intervals.

If you want an explanation on how to interpret a confidence interval see section 3 of Why is there a need for a 'sampling distribution' to find confidence intervals?.

In the example that you are giving you assume the model $Y=\beta X + \epsilon$ and you also assume that you know that $\beta = 2$. The latter is usually not known, you will have to estimate this value from your sample data and find a value $\hat{\beta}$ that will change when you compute it from another sample.

EDIT: after the additional question in your comment

Assume the you would know the $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ exactly, then your model tells you that $W \sim N(\beta_0 + \beta_1 L, \sigma)$. So if you know $\beta_0$, $\beta_1$ and $\sigma$ exactly then you could do as in your comment and make a confidence interval of $[\beta_0 + \beta_1 1.75 - 1.96\sigma;\beta_0 + \beta_1 1.75 + 1.96\sigma]$ .

But you do not know $\beta_0$, nor $\beta_1$ (nor $\sigma$), and you have to use estimates $\hat{\beta}_0, \hat{\beta}_1$ and if you use these values in stead of the true but unkown $\beta_0, \beta_1$ then you ''introduce'' an additional error and thus additional ''uncertainty'' which will imply a wider confidence interval that is given by the complicated formula you refer to.

So if you would know the ''true'' $\beta_i$ you can compute the confidence interval as you describe. But you do not know these values, you estimate $\hat{\beta}_i$ from a sample and you use these estimates as if they are the ''true'' values, so you ''introduce'' an error.

If, in addition to replacing the $\beta_i$ by $\hat{\beta}_i$ you also estimate the $\hat{\sigma}$ then the 1.96 should be replaced by 2 because you ''introduce'' another error when you replace $\sigma$ by the (random) $\hat{\sigma}$. For another sample, you will find another value of $\hat{\sigma}$.

So, if you would know the $\beta_i$ and $\sigma$ exactly, then the formula for the 0.95 confidence interval would be $\hat{y} \pm 1.96 \sigma$, if you replace $\sigma$ by $\hat{\sigma}$ then it should be $\hat{y} \pm 2 \hat{\sigma}$ and if I use the $\hat{\beta}_i$ to compute $\hat{y}$ then you also get the square root factor.

Maybe this will make it a bit clearer (but it is not exact, it more intuitive): assume that your real world (which we never know) would be $W \sim N(\beta_1L, \sigma)$. and thet $\beta_1=2$. I invite you to make a graph $y=2x$ and draw a confidence interval $\pm 1.96\sigma$ (take e.g. $\sigma=1$)., these are two parallel lines.

In reality you don't know that $\beta_1=2$ and you will estimate it from a sample, maybe you will find $\hat{\beta}_1=1.99$, now draw the line $y=1.99x$ and the confidence bands $\pm 1.96\sigma$.

If you take another sample, you will find another $\hat{\beta}_1$, e.g. $\hat{\beta}_1=2.01$, draw the lines for these values. Then the combination of all these ''confidence bands'' gives you ... a wider and curved confidence band (if you do this for $\hat{\beta}_1=1.95, 1.96, ... 2.05$).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ many thanks for your detailed answer. It really helped a lot. One last thing I don't get is, let's say we estimate the sample deviation s, then we can from the model of W^=β0^+β1^×1.75 we have one response value w^ when predictor is 1.75, then we can say 95% the true weight value will be from w^-2s to w^-2s (I know the t value should not be 2,as the df is n-2, but let's have it for convenience). why we still have some complicated formula like s\sqrt{\frac{1}{n}+\frac{{(x*-x)}^2}{(n-1)S_{x}^{2}}}, why don't we just simply use s? $\endgroup$ – whoisit Dec 22 '15 at 1:17
  • $\begingroup$ sorry I don't know how to type the math symbol, you know we have a formula instead of use s directly, I will add the picture in my question $\endgroup$ – whoisit Dec 22 '15 at 1:23
  • $\begingroup$ @whoisit: I have edited the answer $\endgroup$ – user83346 Dec 22 '15 at 10:01
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so so much for your answer, it really help me so much $\endgroup$ – whoisit Dec 22 '15 at 11:13
  • $\begingroup$ @whoisit: you're welcome, glad I could help you and if you like the answer, don't forget to vote for it or if you realy like it, make it your best answer $\endgroup$ – user83346 Dec 22 '15 at 11:34
0
$\begingroup$

You have sample data so the variance equation is actually divided by (N-2). There's a short article here that talks about this calculation.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ do you mean it should be divided by 3 not 5?. But that is for population, not sample, isn't it? $\endgroup$ – whoisit Dec 20 '15 at 7:20
  • $\begingroup$ @whoisit you should divide by 5 if it's the population or 3 if it's a sample. $\endgroup$ – Kristofersen Dec 20 '15 at 7:31
  • $\begingroup$ what I have in my example is for the population, so I think it should be divided by 5. Could you please have a look at my second question about two intervals? Thank you $\endgroup$ – whoisit Dec 20 '15 at 7:46
  • $\begingroup$ @whoisit: you say that $Y=2X$, now it all depends: usually you state that $Y=\beta X$ and you do not know the ''true'' $\beta$ therefore you estimate it from your data. This estimated value differes from the true value therefore it is denoted $\hat{\beta}$. For every value $\beta$ that you estimate from the data, you have to subtract 1 from $N$. So if you are sure that $\beta=2$ then it is $N$ because you know it is 2, so you did not estimate , if $\hat{\beta}=2$ is estimated from the data then you have to subtract 1. In the link there are two $\beta$'s that are estimated from the data. $\endgroup$ – user83346 Dec 20 '15 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ @fcop thanks for your answer. Could you please have a look at my second question about two intervals? Thank you $\endgroup$ – whoisit Dec 21 '15 at 1:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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