Multivariable change of variable.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the multivariable change of variable in the context of multivariate normal distributions. It establishes that if X follows a normal distribution X~Nm(U, S) and Y is defined as Y = a + CX, where C is an invertible matrix, then Y also follows a normal distribution Y ~ Nm(a + CU, CSC'). The user seeks to extend this proof to a scenario involving independent variables X1...Xk, each following a normal distribution Xi ~ Nm(Ui, Si). The user questions how to apply the change of variable formula for a function of several variables, specifically in the context of Y = a + Σ (i=1 to k) CiXi.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multivariate normal distributions
  • Familiarity with covariance matrices
  • Knowledge of linear transformations in statistics
  • Proficiency in matrix operations and properties
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of independent multivariate normal distributions
  • Study the change of variable formula in multivariate statistics
  • Learn about the derivation of distributions from linear combinations of random variables
  • Explore applications of covariance matrices in multivariate analysis
USEFUL FOR

Statisticians, data scientists, and researchers working with multivariate normal distributions and those interested in advanced statistical transformations.

Kuma
Messages
129
Reaction score
0
Hi there.

In the multivariate case it is proven that if

X~Nm(U, S) and Y = a + CX where C is an invertible n x n matrix, and S is the covariance matrix then:

Y ~ Nm(a + CU, CSC')

I am trying to apply this proof to a similar problem.

If we have X1...Xk with Xi ~ Nm(Ui, Si) where i = 1...k, with Xi independent.

what is the distribution of Y = a + sigma (i=1 to k) CiXi

I'm trying to apply the change of variable formula here to derive this, but I don't know how to use it for a function of several variables. In the proof with only X I can understand it.

Here Y = a + (C1X1 + C2X2 + C3X3 + ... + CkXk)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That does not look like a generalization, it looks like a special case of your first statement. The "C" in your first theorem is just the matrix with a single row, [itex]\begin{bmatrix} C_1 & C_2 & \cdot\cdot\cdot & C_k\end{bmatrix}[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K