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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the degrees of freedom in the Chi-squared distribution, particularly in the context of independent normal random variables and random samples. Participants are examining apparent contradictions in references regarding the degrees of freedom associated with these distributions.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a contradiction in two references regarding the degrees of freedom for the Chi-squared distribution, questioning how the same random variable can yield different degrees of freedom.
  • Another participant clarifies that the sample mean differs from the population mean, which may influence the degrees of freedom.
  • A third participant suggests that the explanation for the discrepancy is found in the proof associated with the second reference.
  • It is proposed that in the first case, population parameters are known, while in the second case, they are estimated from a sample, leading to a loss of one degree of freedom.
  • Another participant emphasizes that the difference in degrees of freedom arises because the sum of squares is calculated differently depending on whether the known mean or the sample mean is used.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of using known versus estimated parameters for degrees of freedom, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific conditions under which degrees of freedom are calculated, highlighting the dependence on whether population parameters are known or estimated from a sample.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K