1
$\begingroup$

According to this discussion, the highest variance $X^\prime X$ matrix should correspond with the lowest variance $\beta$ which makes sense to me. But when I ran the following lines I got some curious results...

Y <- matrix( c(303.3,
               467.1,
               422.8,
               391.6,
               403.8,
               373.8,
               263.5,
               226.8,
               183.9,
               208.4,
               208.2,
               168.8,
               245.4,
               160.0,
               173.2), nrow=15, ncol=1, byrow=TRUE)
X <- matrix( c(1, 3, 1, 8, 1, 1,
               1, 6, 3, 3, 1, 2,
               1, 4, 1, 4, 1, 5,
               1, 5, 1, 3, 1, 1,
               1, 7, 1, 3, 3, 1,
               1, 6, 1, 3, 5, 2,
               1, 6, 1, 8, 5, 3,
               1, 5, 1, 8, 3, 2,
               1, 1, 3, 4, 2, 1,
               1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 4,
               1, 2, 3, 3, 1, 3,
               1, 1, 4, 3, 2, 3,
               1, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5,
               1, 2, 1, 5, 2, 2,
               1, 5, 1, 4, 2, 1), nrow=15, ncol=6, byrow=TRUE)

apply(t(X)%*%X, MARGIN=2, FUN=sd)

apply(solve(t(X)%*%X)), MARGIN=2, FUN=sd)

What I found curious is that $X^\prime X$ yields column standard deviations as follows

19.12503 94.55721 34.12575 100.84328 47.27120 43.32551

and the standard deviatoin of the columns for $(X^\prime X)^{-1}$ are

0.75477714 0.04729509 0.09832687 0.06428046 0.03173388 0.02858314

The former would suggest that the 4th column ($\beta_3$) would have the greatest precision but the latter would suggest that ($\beta_5$) is the most precise.

Did I goof somewhere? Which one should I trust more?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I am unable to see any connection between the operations you are performing and the thread you link to. Could you clarify what you mean by "the highest variance $X^\prime X$ matrix"? There's only one such matrix in evidence. $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Mar 24, 2020 at 20:57
  • $\begingroup$ I figured out what I was was misunderstanding. $(X^\prime X)^{-1}$ looks a lot like the covariance matrix for the betas. So my question above highlights my misunderstanding. I'm comfortable with the answer now. $\endgroup$ Mar 24, 2020 at 21:17

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Figured out the answer to my question. Taking the variances along the columns doesn't make sense, the matrix itself resembles the covariance matrix and that covariance matrix is what I needed in order to understand the problem I was trying to solve. The beta that corresponding to the smallest diagonal along the covariance matrix is the beta that is most precisely estimated.

$\endgroup$

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.