Skip to main content

A personal annotations of Veach's thesis (12) P.71

2.8.2 Regression methods

Section 2.8.2's Equation (2.33) was a mystery for me at first. I asked this to a few specialists, but they told me that is not so important, and I should go forward, the good ones are coming... Therefore, this annotation might not so helpful, but I like this straightforward idea.

The hint of understanding of this Equation is in the paper: ``Equation (2.33) is the standard minimum variance unbiased linear estimator of desired mean I, ....'' This means he used Gauss's least square method. Most of the part of Veach's paper is self contained and easy to understand, but, personally I would like to have one more equation --- Equation (1) --- here.


 This means each final estimation F is equal to the sample mean \hat{I}. Veach might think this is too obvious and he didn't feel to write it down. But it surely helps for dummies like me. We can derive Equation (2.33) from Equation (1), so let's try that.

First of all, Equation (1) has usually no solution. If so, the estimator can always estimate the exact value of the sample mean. I write transpose of X as X^* following the Veach's notation, then apply the Gauss's least square method. This is Equation (2). But I would say this is too naive. In Veach's paper, he suggest more sophisticated method that uses variance covariance matrix \hat{V} as a weight for the least square.

Using \hat{V}, Equation (3) is the base equation. I suppose that the weight is an inversed matrix since we want to minimize the variance. The rest is the standard least square method, then we obtained Equation (4).  This Equation (4) is exactly the same to Equation (2.33). In this way, now we see this equation is nothing mysterious, but a natural one.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why parallelogram area is |ad-bc|?

Here is my question. The area of parallelogram is the difference of these two rectangles (red rectangle - blue rectangle). This is not intuitive for me. If you also think it is not so intuitive, you might interested in my slides. I try to explain this for hight school students. Slides:  A bit intuitive (for me) explanation of area of parallelogram  (to my site, external link) . 

Geometric Multiplicity: eignvectors (2)

If eigenvectors of a matrix A are independent, it is a happy property. Because the matrix A can be diagonalized with a matrix S that column vectors are eigenvectors of A . For example, Why this is a happy property of A? Because I can find A's power easily. A^{10} is not a big deal. Because Λ is a diagonal matrix and power of a diagonal matrix is quite simple. A^{10} = SΛ^{10} S^{-1} Then, why if I want to compute power of A ? That is the same reason to find eigenvectors. Eigenvectors are a basis of a matrix. A matrix can be represented by a single scalar. I repeat this again. This is the happy point, a matrix becomes a scalar. What can be simpler than a scalar value. But, this is only possible when the matrix S's columns are independent. Because S^{-1} must be exist. Now I come back to my first question. Is the λ's multiplicity related with the number of eigenvectors? This time I found this has the name. Geometric multiplicity (GM): the number of in...

Gauss's quote for positive, negative, and imaginary number

Recently I watched the following great videos about imaginary numbers by Welch Labs. https://youtu.be/T647CGsuOVU?list=PLiaHhY2iBX9g6KIvZ_703G3KJXapKkNaF I like this article about naming of math by Kalid Azad. https://betterexplained.com/articles/learning-tip-idea-name/ Both articles mentioned about Gauss, who suggested to use other names of positive, negative, and imaginary numbers. Gauss wrote these names are wrong and that is one of the reason people didn't get why negative times negative is positive, or, pure positive imaginary times pure positive imaginary is negative real number. I made a few videos about explaining why -1 * -1 = +1, too. Explanation: why -1 * -1 = +1 by pattern https://youtu.be/uD7JRdAzKP8 Explanation: why -1 * -1 = +1 by climbing a mountain https://youtu.be/uD7JRdAzKP8 But actually Gauss's insight is much powerful. The original is in the Gauß, Werke, Bd. 2, S. 178 . Hätte man +1, -1, √-1) nicht positiv, negative, imaginäre (oder gar um...