Hi,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I have a problem that is giving me a headache. I have measured two angles that I believe to be related to one another, and they are (this is a data set where I have measured the angle from a datum to two features on a bone. There are 14 bones in the data set):

Angles to feature 1 (F1):

15.225

14.2318

9.4301

12.2947

14.8846

7.6533

9.0948

11.9725

4.2773

14.1819

8.841

17.1037

20.2373

13.4599

Angles to feature 2 (F2):

3.1227

9.4799

7.9047

13.4962

8.5454

24.2871

11.443

12.6693

21.5271

4.0733

5.0085

4.0101

5.4445

16.424

When I plot F1 vs F2 and do a linear correlation I get an r^2 = 0.47. Related, but not very strongly.

The thing is, I'm doing this because I have a bunch partial bone specimens and cannot define the datum, so in general I'm going to have the angle between feature 1 and feature 2, and am hoping to be able to get the position of the datum from this angle. So if I plot (F1-F2) vs F1 I get a much better correlation (r^2 = 0.74) and (F1-F2) vs F2 gets even better (r^2 = 0.9)!

What I don't understand is, how can a linear combination of the two be better than either one alone? I have added no information and the equations are not linearly independent. What am looking at in the plots with the difference?

I have attached plots of F1 vs F2, Diff vs F1 and Diff vs F2 with the regressions plotted.

Thanks for your help.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Regression of linear combination better than just regression

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**