Jump to content

Talk:Regression analysis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 73.9.96.77 (talk) at 20:40, 8 March 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

dependent variables

Do dependent variables for regression models have to be interval variables? Or can a nominal variable be used (such as 0=Dropped out of school 1=did not drop out of school)? Kingturtle (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your dependent variables are qualitative (nominal) the concept is usually called classification. 217.229.18.150 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See logistic regression and probit model. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that someone asks this question, points out that this type of basic information needs to be in the article. Overall, find the article unwieldy, as others have commented. To help improve it for general readers, I suggest including more high-level summary information at the beginning of the article, and waiting to get into deeper technical material until later in the article. E.g., I think that article could benefit from 1) more general information that relates regression and correlation, and 2) more general information that outlines the different types of regression, and the situations when each is appropriate (linear vs. logistic vs. Probit, etc.). Karl (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing odd phrasing in introductory paragraph

At present, the article starts off with the two following sentences (weird parts in bold, unnecessary text removed):


"... regression analysis is a statistical technique ... It includes many techniques ..."


It's obvious that the phrasing needs to be changed, because right now the claim is that regression analysis is a technique which includes many techniques. I'm not sure that even makes sense, but if it does, it still leaves room for improvement.

I'm inclined to believe that regression analysis includes many techniques, but that would suggest that regression analysis itself is not a technique (or at least should not also be called a technique). For comparison, the article on statistical inference uses the word "process", which I've decided ought to be a better choice. I have never studied regression analysis, so feel free to undo my edit and/or think of an alternative if you have studied this subject and disagree with me. -NorsemanII (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe method with techniques? 82.217.116.224 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total least squares

It is perhaps clarifying to people if ordinary regression is shown in contrast with orthogonal regression:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_least_squares

This makes it easy to explain the "nature of the error", what is meant with "dependent" vs "independent" variables, etc. Anne van Rossum (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Probably wrong formulas for the error estimates

In the two formulas below "The standard errors of the parameter estimates are given by", I think there is a missing square root for both \hat{\sigma}_\epsilon.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regression_analysis&oldid=650499451"