0
$\begingroup$

$Y_i$ are independent random variables following a normal law of mean $m_i = Ax_i + B$ and variance $V.$

Let's take a sample $y_i \sim Y_i.$

I determine $a$ and $b,$ the weigthed least squares coefficients with weights $w_i$ of sum $1.$ I am interested in an unbiased estimator of variance $V.$

$$\sum w_i (y_i - a x_i - b)^2$$

is obviously biased but I don't manage to get anywhere close to a simple expression for an unbiased eatimate (In the case of the constant fit, it's fairly easier,see unbiased estimate of the variance of a weighted mean.)

Any ideas or references?

EDIT: for the unweighted regression, it's quite standard and a factor $n / (n - 2)$ is applied. But it won't work with weights (hint: take $w_1 = 0.$)


Rationale

I've been asked why I would need to assign different weights if all data points have the same variance.

I have two main cases from real life (physics):

  • The relative variances are known but the normalisation is unknown. Thus the variances are $\sigma_i^2 = \sigma^2 / w_i$ with $w_i$ known but $\sigma$ remains to be determined.
  • The data follow a linear law only locally, so I want to filter out distant data with some weight function such as $w_i = \exp (-k^2 (x_i - x_0)^2)$.

Solution

I managed to come up with a solution.

Using $$x_i' = x_i - \sum_j w_j x_j$$ the biased estimator for the variance $$\hat\sigma_\text{b}^2 = \sum_i w_i (y - a x_i - b)^2$$ can be written as $$\hat\sigma_\text{b}^2 = \sum_i w_i y_i^2 - \left(\sum_i w_i y_i\right)^2 - \frac{\left(\sum_i w_i x_i' y_i\right)^2}{\sum_i w_i x_i'^2} $$

To make the derivation easier, I will assume that the law I am trying to fit has $A=B=0$ so that $E(y_i) = 0$ and $E(y_i y_j) = \delta_{ij} \sigma^2$. With that in mind I can expand the squares into double sums, notice that indices $i \ne j$ cancel and finally find that $$\hat\sigma_\text{b}^2 = \sigma^2 - \left(\sum_i w_i^2 \right) \sigma^2 -\frac{\sum_i w_i^2 x_i'^2}{\sum_i w_i x_i'^2} \sigma^2$$

Thus I can write the unbiased estimate as $$\hat\sigma^2 = \frac{N}{N - \Delta N_\text{free}} \hat\sigma_\text{b}$$ where $$\Delta N_\text{free} = N \left[ \sum_i w_i^2 + \frac{\sum_i w_i^2 x_i'^2}{\sum_i w_i x_i'^2} \right]$$ is the loss of degrees of freedom. For equal weights ($w_i = 1/N$) it equals two, but will be larger than that for unequal weights.

Follow-up question

It seems simple enough that it must be somehow a well-known result. Any reference?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Often one uses weights proportional to the reciprocals of the variances, since that minimizes the variance of the least-squares estimators of $a$ and $b.$ But you are assuming the variances are all the same. Is there are reason for using some other weights? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 14:15

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

This is a standard fact in the theory of linear statistical models. See e.g. formulas (4.5) and (4.7) in Chapter 4, which present the following unbiased estimator of the variance: $$\hat\sigma^2=\frac1{n-2}\, \Big(\sum_{i=1}^n Y_i^2-n\bar Y^2-\frac{\big(\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-\bar x)Y_i\big)^2}{\sum_{i=1}^n(x_i-\bar x)^2}\Big),$$ where $\bar Y:=\frac1n\,\sum_{i=1}^n Y_i$ and $\bar x:=\frac1n\,\sum_{i=1}^n x_i$.

(It is of course assumed here that $n\ge3$ and at least two of the $x_i$'s are distinct from each other.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is indeed standard in the unweighted case. However, in the weighted fit, it's no longer a n / (n-2) correction. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean, precisely, by "in the weighted fit"? Why (and how) should an unbiased estimator of $V$ depend on your choice of estimators of $A$ and $B$? Also, using unequal weights given the same variance for all $i$ does not seem reasonable. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 5 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ @loqueelviento : Do you a further response to my answer and comment? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 14:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I could answer my own question. 1. There are reasons for unequal weights (e.g. filter out distant data if law is linear only locally). 2. I don't understand your comment about A and B, I do not chose them, I try to fit them. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 20:24
  • $\begingroup$ @loqueelviento : I have commented on your reasons for unequal weights. As for $A$ and $B$, I did not say that you chose them. Instead, I said you chose (weighted) estimators of $A$ and $B$. These estimators will depend on your choice of the weights. I also said that there is no reason to tie estimation of $V$ to your choice of estimators for $A$ and $B$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 6 at 20:35

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.