I know the dependent variable $Y$ is a function of $X$ and $Z$, while $X$ and $Z$ are orthogonal. I want to quantify the impact of $X$ on $Y$, but the problem is that $X$ is unobservable to me. Is it plausible to regress $Y$ on $Z$ and take the residuals or $1-R^2$ to estimate the impact of $X$? To be more specific, let's assume a simple linear relationship between $Y$, $X$, and $Z$: $$Y = X +aZ $$ Here $Y$ and $Z$ are observable, but $X$ and $a$ are not. So in this case how can I estimate the value of $X$? Can it be done via regressing $Y$ on $Z$?
-
$\begingroup$ What do you mean $X$ is unobservable? $\endgroup$– Shawn HemelstrandCommented Feb 4, 2023 at 13:39
-
$\begingroup$ What do you mean by "estimate the value of $X$"? Isn't $X$ a random variable? $\endgroup$– Adrià LuzCommented Feb 4, 2023 at 14:15
-
$\begingroup$ Is there an error or an intercept? $\endgroup$– dimitriyCommented Feb 4, 2023 at 15:59
-
$\begingroup$ @ShawnHemelstrand It means that I have no way to directly measure the value of $X$. $\endgroup$– Xiangyu WANGCommented Feb 5, 2023 at 2:16
-
$\begingroup$ @AdriàLuz Yes it is a random variable. What I want is to get the value of each $X_t$ given $Y_t$ and $Z_t$. $\endgroup$– Xiangyu WANGCommented Feb 5, 2023 at 2:19
1 Answer
If $X$ is truly orthogonal to $Z$, and the coefficient on $X$ is truly equal to 1, and there is no error (i.e., $X$ and $Z$ are truly the only causes of $Y$), then regress $Y$ on $Z$ (with no intercept) and use the residuals from the model as $X$. That is, fit the model $$ Y = a Z + \varepsilon $$ And set $X = Y - \hat{a} Z$. This can be done because $\hat{a}$ is identified from the fact that $X$ and $Z$ are orthogonal, so the bias due to omitting $X$ is 0.
This requires an insane and highly unlikely set of assumptions and so would have no practical utility. But under the assumptions you wrote in your post (unreasonable as they are), estimating $X$ is straightforward. This is possibly related to this somewhat similar post involving an impossible set of assumptions.
-
$\begingroup$ My only issue with this answer is that $X$ is unobservable as specified by OP, so estimating $X$ with a vanilla regression would not be straightforward. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2023 at 5:06
-
$\begingroup$ @ShawnHemelstrand I don't think so. $Y$ and $Z$ are observed, $a$ is identifiable from the data, and that leaves an equation with one unobserved quantity, $X$. This is unlike any real problem in statistics because OP claims there is a deterministic relationship among the variables with no error at all. $\endgroup$– NoahCommented Feb 5, 2023 at 7:08
-
$\begingroup$ Now that you frame it like that it makes more sense. +1 $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5, 2023 at 7:24
-
$\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for the clarification. For the real-world case where such a deterministic relationship may hold, I come up with the alpha return of a portfolio (yes it is not a pure statistics or causal inference problem since the relationship is imposed by definition). To calculate the unobservable alpha return 1) we regress the total return to the market return to get $\beta$, 2) we take the regression residual to measure the alpha return. It may not sound very reasonable in statistics but I see the financial literature take this procedure. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 6, 2023 at 3:30