6
$\begingroup$

In linear regression : $$ y_i = \beta_1 + \beta_2x_i + \epsilon_i $$ I don't understand why Var$(y_i)= \sigma^2$

Because

\begin{align} \text{Var}(Y_i) &= \text{Var}(\beta_1 + \beta_2 x_i + \epsilon_i) \\ &= \beta_2^2 \text{Var}(x_i) + \sigma^2 \end{align}

$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ $x_i$ is a constant so its variance is 0, yielding the $\sigma^2$ result. $\endgroup$
    – josliber
    Commented Oct 24, 2016 at 15:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $var(y_i|x_i)=\sigma^2$. $var(y_i) \neq \sigma^2$ as you are attempting to show. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 24, 2016 at 15:47

2 Answers 2

7
$\begingroup$

$x_i$ is one single non-random variable, so on itself it has a variance of 0, so the formula you wrote simplifies to just $\sigma^2$.

Normally $y_i$ is expressed as follows:

$$y_i \sim N(\beta_1 + \beta_2x_i, \;\sigma^2)$$

This way it should be evident how the variance of $y_i$ is determined. $\beta_1 + \beta_2x_i$ only contributes to the expected value of $y_i$.

$\endgroup$
0
3
$\begingroup$

Let's say you have the regression equation:

$$ y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_i + \epsilon_i $$

Different books, different lectures notes etc... follow two different approaches:

  1. Treat $x_i$ are scalars. They're entirely exogenous. They're not random.
  2. Treat $x_i$ as a random variable.

The answer of @Jarko Dubbeldam takes approach (1). If $x_i$ is a scalar then simply:

$$ \mathrm{Var}(y_i) = \mathrm{Var}(\epsilon_i )$$

In any settings, Approach 1 is excessively restrictive (and it isn't necessary). If you take approach two though, you would need to write:

$$ \mathrm{Var}(y_i \mid x_i ) = \mathrm{Var}(\epsilon_i )$$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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