Non-normal measurement error in linear regression

e065331
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Complicated stats question, but maybe someone out there knows how to proceed. I am trying to perform regression on two variables, the samples of which have significant, but known error components. Ordinary least squares regression cannot be used as it is assumed that measurements are made without error. As I understand it, the normal way to proceed would be to assume a maximum likelihood functional relationship (MLFR) and use some of the widely available iterative algorithms. However, in order to ensure even sample distrubution (i.e. not skewed) and homo-scedasticity I performed logarithmic transforms on both variables. As a consequence the sample errors are log-normal. standard MLFR techniques assume normal error distributions. Is there any way of dealing with this problem. Specifically, is anyone aware freeware computer programs that would allow one to estimate parameter values and confidence intervals.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi,

i am also trying to perform non normal error dist in linear regression.. may i know what is your general equation for the error term?
 
As far as I am aware, one way to correct for measurement error is to look for instruments that are correlated with the original independent variable(s) but do not have the measurement problem. See, e.g. Greene, 2nd Ed. Sec. 9.5.3.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top