3
$\begingroup$

When reviewing lecture slides for the proof that $\hat{\beta_1}$ is linear in OLS-regression my teacher posted the following on the lecture slides: $$\hat{\beta_1}=\frac{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})Y_i}{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})^2}= \sum a_iY_i \text{ where }a_i= \frac{(X_i-\bar{X})}{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})^2}$$

But when I look at the same proof in the textbook the teacher referenced for a further discussion of this proof (Introduction to Econometrics by Stock&Watson, appendix 5.2) the same proof have the following notation: $\hat{a_i}= \frac{(X_i-\bar{X})}{(X_i-\bar{X})^2}$ . Note that there is no $\sum$-sign in the denomination in the second case.

So my questions are:

  1. Which is the correct notation?
  2. If the correct notation is $\frac{(X_i-\bar{X})}{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})^2}$, I would be grateful for an explanation of why this is the case since $\frac{(X_i-\bar{X})}{(X_i-\bar{X})^2}$ intuitively feels correct.
$\endgroup$
10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The correct formulas are with 1 replaced by i. @JohnMadden, I guess this is simple regression, thus the double index is redundant. $\endgroup$
    – utobi
    Aug 2 at 15:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @utobi ah that mostly makes sense.... but then why does $\hat{\beta}$ have that 1 subscript? haha maybe we're reading too far into this $\endgroup$ Aug 2 at 16:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnMadden to read even further, maybe the parameters are called beta0 and beta1… $\endgroup$
    – utobi
    Aug 2 at 16:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AoMRos just to make clear that there's one sum in the denominator, and a different one in the numerator. Or in other words, to make clear that it's different than the index $i$ which subscripts $a_i$. $\endgroup$ Aug 2 at 17:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AoMRos the sum in the numerator of your very first equation. $\endgroup$ Aug 2 at 17:54

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

I'm assuming we are talking about the simple linear regression model

$$ Y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_i + \epsilon_i,\quad i=1,\ldots,n, $$ with $\epsilon_i\sim N(0,\,\sigma^2)$, $\sigma^2>0$, independently and identically. Doing the calculations yourself will notice that the OLS estimator for $\beta_1$ is

\begin{align*} \hat \beta_1 &= \frac{\sum_i (Y_i-\bar Y)(X_i-\bar X)}{\sum_i(X_i-\bar X)^2} = \frac{\sum_i Y_i(X_i-\bar X)-\sum_i \bar Y(X_i-\bar X)}{\sum_i(X_i-\bar X)^2}\tag{*}\\ &= \sum_i a_iY_i.\tag{**} \end{align*}

The first equality in (*) is just OLS, the second equality is algebra and equality in (**) is due to a certain property of the average. I'm leaving the rest of the details to you since this is a self-study question.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You assume correct. On the right hand side of = in $(*)$ , shouldn't the sum that is subtracted in the numerator be $\sum_i\bar{Y}(X_i-\bar{X})$? $\endgroup$
    – AoMRos
    Aug 2 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ I've managed to simplify the euation above as far as $\frac{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})}{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})^2} * Y_i=\hat{\beta_1}$ and $a_i$ would thus equal $\frac{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})}{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})^2}$. The problem is that this is different than both the fractions I included in my original question and despite my very best efforts i have not been able to get any further. $\endgroup$
    – AoMRos
    Aug 2 at 18:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've slept on this now and I think I got it! If $\frac{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})}{\sum(X_i-\bar{X})^2}*Y_i=\sum a_i Y_i=\hat{\beta_1}$ then $a_i=\frac{(X_i-\bar{X})}{(X_i-\bar{X})^2}$. Is this correct? $\endgroup$
    – AoMRos
    Aug 3 at 5:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you so much. This was driving me asolutely crazy $\endgroup$
    – AoMRos
    Aug 3 at 5:39

Your Answer

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

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