Using correlation coefficients as x in a regression?

AI Thread Summary
Using rolling correlation coefficients as predictor variables in linear regression can be mathematically valid, though it raises questions about underlying assumptions. The discussion highlights that while there may not be a direct violation of regression assumptions, the appropriateness of this approach depends on the context and the relationships between the variables involved. A specific example given is the relationship between predator and prey populations, where the rolling correlation indicates balance and can predict the rate of predation. The model's validity hinges on how well the correlation reflects the dynamics of the variables. Overall, this method can be useful in certain scenarios, particularly when exploring relationships in ecological or other dynamic systems.
╔(σ_σ)╝
Messages
838
Reaction score
2
Using correlation coefficients as x in a regression??

I was reading an article in the Wall street journal and the author was using a rolling correlation coefficient, on a set of variables, as his predictor variable in a linear regression.

Basically it was a uni-variate linear regression , y= mx+b and x was the Pearson correlation coefficient calculated using a 30 day window on two random variables.

This seems "wrong" but I am not sure that it is. I don't know of any regression assumption this violates but at the same time it just doesn't seem like you can do this sort of thing.

What do you think ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think this isn't a mathematical question until we know what is assumed and what is asserted. For example, what are the assumptions of "regression"? What consequences follow from those assumptions? There are several types of regression.
 
There is nothing mathematically wrong with this model, per say. It's easy to define an example . Suppose we have two random variables, C and D and X is the rolling correlation between C and D. We can define a random variable Y as Y = ax+b for real constants a,b. Then the linear regression would be a perfect model for Y.

I thought of a type of situation that would naturally lead to a model like you have. When the subject of interest, Y, is related to how well two other variables, C and D, are in or out of balance, this type of model might easily occur. Example: Suppose you are studying predator/pray (C and D) and trying to predict the rate, Y, that predators are killing that prey. When they are out of balance, too many predators or not enough predators, the rate of kills, Y, will be smaller than when they are in balance. The rolling correlation, X, between predator and prey numbers indicates how well they stay in balance. So a natural model would be a linear regression between X and Y.

Other examples are where the rate of something, Y, increases when two other things, C and D, get out of balance.
 
Last edited:
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top