17
$\begingroup$

In the book Introductory Econometrics by Wooldridge the chapter, which deals with predicting values of $\hat{y}$ (chapter 6.4 in the 5th edition) states the following:

If the estimated model is:

$$\widehat{\log(y)} = \hat{\beta_0} + \hat{\beta_1}x_1 + ...+\hat{\beta_k}x_k$$

then

$$\hat{y} = \exp\left(\frac{\hat{\sigma}^2}{2}\right) \exp(\widehat{\log(y)})$$

where $\hat{\sigma}^2$ is the unbiased estimator of $\sigma^2. $

Can someone please explain why this is the case and why we cannot simply take $$\hat{y} = \exp(\widehat{\log(y)})$$

$\endgroup$
21
$\begingroup$

The underlying model is

$$E[\log Y] = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_1 + \cdots + \beta_k x_k$$

or, in terms of error terms $\varepsilon_i,$

$$\log Y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_{1i} + \cdots + \beta_k x_{ki} + \varepsilon_i.\tag{*}$$

When we assume the conditional distribution of $\log Y$ is Normal, then the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) estimate of $\log Y$ also is Normal, because the estimate is an affine linear combination of the errors. Suppose $\sigma^2$ is its true (but unknown) variance. Then

$$E[Y] = e^{\sigma^2/2} e^{E[\log Y]}.$$

(This is a readily-calculated property of Lognormal distributions: see Wikipedia, for instance.)

Wooldridge plugs the estimates of $\sigma^2$ and $E[\log Y]$ into this formula. As such, it can be viewed as a method of moments estimate of $E[Y].$

Although intuitively reasonable, this estimator is not necessarily the best or even a good one. For instance, it is biased: see https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/105734/919 for a discussion and a derivation of an unbiased version. Its main flaw is extreme sensitivity to the precision of the estimate $\hat \sigma^2:$ to use it reliably, you want either a great deal of data or for $\sigma^2$ to be very small.


In light of this, you may indeed consider using the estimate

$$\widehat Y = \exp\left(\widehat {E[\log Y]}\right).$$

This estimates the geometric mean of the conditional response (essentially by definition of geometric mean). In some applications it might be a better choice. After all, when you fit the logarithms of your data using OLS you were downweighting underestimates of $Y$ compared to overestimates, demonstrating you really don't want accurate estimates of $E[Y]$ itself. If you did, you would have fit the nonlinear least-squares model

$$E[Y] = \exp\left(\alpha_0+ \alpha_1 x_1 + \cdots + \alpha_k x_k\right) .$$

If you want to express the error terms $\delta_i$ explicitly, this is equivalent to

$$Y_i = e^{\alpha_0}\, \left(e^{x_{1i}}\right)^{\alpha_1}\,\cdots\,\left(e^{x_{ki}}\right)^{\alpha_k} + \delta_i.\tag{**}$$

It is instructive to compare this to the exponential of $(*)$ which asserts

$$Y_i = e^{\beta_0}\, \left(e^{x_{1i}}\right)^{\beta_1}\,\cdots\,\left(e^{x_{ki}}\right)^{\beta_k} \, e^{\varepsilon_i}.$$

Where $(*)$ posits multiplicative errors $\cdot e^{\varepsilon_i},$ $(**)$ posits additive errors $+\delta_i.$ That's the basic difference between the two models. (And, as a result, the values of the $\alpha_j$ will not equal the corresponding $\beta_j$ and their estimates will often differ, too.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The way that you use the log in this is different than how log is used for Poisson regression, right? I think the answer is “yes and obviously yes, since it’s the expectation of the log instead of the log of the expectation,” but I was so convinced when I read the question that it was about Poisson regression that I’m a bit thrown off by this response. $\endgroup$ – Dave Dec 13 '19 at 14:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Upvoted for the excellence and clarity of the answer. $\endgroup$ – James Phillips Dec 13 '19 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Dave The absence of any link function indicates this question is not about Poisson regression. $\endgroup$ – whuber Dec 13 '19 at 15:38

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.