Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on Can the relative magnitude of standardized coefficients indicate variable importance?

Parent

Can the relative magnitude of standardized coefficients indicate variable importance?

+3
−0

Comparing the standardized coefficients (resulting from linear regression) across different samples can be problematic (because the sample variances can be influenced by measurement error).

But can the standardized coefficients of two different variables be compared in one sample - to ascertain which variable has a 'larger effect' ?

Is it a reasonable way to infer the larger effect - even if an imperfect one?

History

0 comment threads

Post
+1
−0

Why, yes. If one has a linear regression $\mathbf{y} = \mathbf{X} \mathbf{\beta} + \mathbf{\epsilon}$ and models the errors as i.i.d Gaussians with known standard deviation $\sigma$ then the likelihood function for the "true" coefficients will be a multivariate Gaussian with that standard deviation.

The covariance matrix that determines this multivariate Gaussian will be the same as the covariance matrix of the columns of $X$. This is because we are orthogonally projecting the spherical Gaussian distribution surrounding $y$ onto the hyperplane defined by $X$.

Of course for less than 30 data points we don't know the right standard deviation and so we have to use a T-distribution for our likelihood function.

As for the OP's particular question of how to test whether one coefficient is greater than another: for large samples, all we need to do is run our linear regression, then run it again with the two coefficients "pegged" to equal each other (by merging two columns of the $\mathbf{X}$ matrix), and look at the relative increase in the standard deviation of our error estimate; that gives us our test statistic which we can plug into the one-tailed Z-test. (Briefly, this computes how far, in units of standard deviations of the error, the line $\beta_1=\beta_2$ is from the estimated parameters.)

The same approach works for testing whether one coefficient is greater or less than any linear combination of the other coefficients.

History

1 comment thread

Why 30? Normally for estimating the mean of a normal (or "Gaussian") population, I would use a t-dist... (3 comments)
Why 30? Normally for estimating the mean of a normal (or "Gaussian") population, I would use a t-dist...
Michael Hardy‭ wrote 3 months ago

Why 30? Normally for estimating the mean of a normal (or "Gaussian") population, I would use a t-distibution until the sample size is at least 100 or so. I wonder whether you may be confusing this with the rough (and not very good) rule of thumb that says the sampling distribution of the sample mean is approximately normal for sample sizes of at least 30? (For that, a sample size of 10 or so may be big enough if the population distribution is not to skewed, and far, far bigger than 30 if it is very skewed.

clemens‭ wrote 3 months ago

Michael Hardy‭ 30 was the figure given in my statistics textbook (though I don't remember the title exactly) for when one could reasonably safely use the Z-test instead of the T-test. But that textbook was written before computers made the T-test practical.

Michael Hardy‭ wrote 3 months ago

Are you sure it wasn't for use of the central limit theorem rather than for use of the z-test? (Either way, it's not really good advice.)