[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Next step in covariance matrix
From: |
John Darrington |
Subject: |
Re: Next step in covariance matrix |
Date: |
Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:25:32 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
So it sounds as if the next step is simply to drop one column per categorical
variable.
That should be quite simple.
Will that be enough to allow a subset of GLM to be implemented?
J'
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:47:23AM -0400, Jason Stover wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:38:19AM +0000, John Darrington wrote:
> Just to make sure I understand things correctly, consider the following
example,
> where x and y are numeric variables and A and B are categorical ones:
>
> x y A B
> =======
> 3 4 x v
> 5 6 y v
> 7 8 z w
>
> We replace the categorical variables with bit_vectors:
>
> x y A_0 A_1 A_2 B_0 B_1
> ========================
> 3 4 1 0 0 1 0
> 5 6 0 1 0 1 0
> 7 8 0 0 1 0 1
>
> and arbitrarily drop the (say zeroth) subscript:
>
> x y A_1 A_2 B_1
> ==================
> 3 4 0 0 0
> 5 6 1 0 0
> 7 8 0 1 1
>
> That will produce a 5x5 matrix. 5 is calculated from n + m - p, where
> n is the number of numeric variables, m is the total number of
categories,
> and p is the number of categorical variables.
This is correct.
> However I don't see how such a matrix can be very useful. A better one
would involve
> the products of the categorical and numeric variables:
>
> x y x*A_1 x*A_2 y*A_1 y*A_2 x*B_1 y*B_1
> ===========================================
> 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
> 5 6 5 0 6 0 0 0
> 7 8 0 7 0 8 7 8
>
> This makes an 8x8 matrix, where 8 is calculated from n + n * (m - p) ,
> which happens to be identical to n * (1 + m - p). But this involves
> a whole lot more calculations.
This second choice would give you the covariance of x and y, and the
covariances of the *interactions* between x and A, x and B, y and A,
and y and B, but not the covariance between (say) x and A. The
covariance between x and A would be stored in the first matrix you
mentioned, in elements (0,2), (0,3), (2,0) and (3,0) assuming we kept
both upper and lower triangles.
You mention that matrix not being very useful, and in a sense it
isn't: No human would care about the covariance between x and the
column corresponding to the first bit vector of A. But in another
sense, that matrix is absolutely necessary: It's used to solve the
least squares problem, whose solution we use to tell us if A and our
dependent variable are related. That relation is shown via analysis of
variance, whose p-value is many computations away from the covariance
matrix, but depends on it nevertheless.
This matrix is unnecessary for a one-way ANOVA, whose computations from
the matrix above can be simplified into the simple sums used in
oneway.q. But for a bigger model, with many factors and interactions
and covariates, we need that first matrix because we can't reduce the
problem to a few easy-to-read summations.
_______________________________________________
pspp-dev mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
--
PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3
fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3
See http://pgp.mit.edu or any PGP keyserver for public key.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Next step in covariance matrix, John Darrington, 2009/10/31