Why Do Degrees of Freedom Differ in Chi-Squared Distributions?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the differing degrees of freedom in Chi-squared distributions as presented in two references from the same source. The first reference indicates that the sum of squares of independent standard normal variables follows a Chi-squared distribution with n degrees of freedom, while the second reference states it follows a Chi-squared distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom when considering a random sample. The discrepancy arises because the first case assumes known population parameters, whereas the second case estimates these parameters from the sample, leading to a loss of one degree of freedom. This adjustment compensates for the reduced sum of squares when using the sample mean instead of the population mean. Understanding this distinction clarifies why the degrees of freedom differ in these contexts.
Usjes
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am trying to understand the degrees of freedom parameter in the Chi_squared distribution and I have found two references from the same source that appear, to me, to contradict one-another. Can anyone explain what is going on ?
In https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat414/node/171 it states that:
Corollary. If X1, X2 , ... , Xn are independent normal random variables with mean=0 and variance=1, that is: Xi∼N(0,1) for i = 1, 2, ..., n. Then:

Sum_from_one_to_n(Xi)^2 ∼ χ2(n) ( I have simplified the formula in the source by setting all μi to 0 and σi to 1)

But https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat414/node/174 states that:
X1, X2, ... , Xn are observations of a random sample of size n from the normal distribution N(0,1) then:
Sum_from_one_to_n(Xi)^2 ∼ χ2(n-1) (Again setting all μi to 0 and σi to 1)

So it seems that a (slightly) different pdf is being given for the same R.V. , we have lost 1 degree of freedom. Can anyone explain this, or does the fact that the individual observations in the second case are described as a 'random sample' somehow impact on their independence ? If so, how exactly, is each element of the sample not an RV in its own right whose pdf is that of the population and => N(0,1) ?

Thanks,

Usjes
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The sample mean of a random sample (\bar{X} )is not the same as the mean (i.e. "population mean" \mu ) of the random variable from which the sample is taken.
 
"Can anyone explain this,..."

The explanation is in the proof shown below your second reference.
 
In the first case the population parameters are somehow known. The second case is more usual, in which the population parameters are unknown and are estimated from a random sample. This inaccuracy is compensated for by loss of a degree of freedom.
 
Your second statement is not what the reference says. Your statement uses the known mean, but the reference uses the sample mean. The sum of squares is the sum squares of differences from the known mean of 0. That has n degrees of freedom. It is only if the sample mean is used instead of the known mean that the degrees of freedom are reduced by 1. Notice that using the sample mean will reduce the sum of squares, so the different degrees of freedom is needed to compensate for that.
 
Last edited:
If there are an infinite number of natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two natural numbers, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and an infinite number of fractions in between any two of those fractions, and... then that must mean that there are not only infinite infinities, but an infinite number of those infinities. and an infinite number of those...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K