Why linear in linear regression?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the terminology and conceptual understanding of linear regression, specifically questioning why the term "linear" is used when the functions involved may be affine rather than strictly linear. Participants explore the implications of this terminology in the context of parameter estimation and functional relationships in regression analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the term "linear" in linear regression is often used for convenience, as it typically refers to affine functions of the parameters rather than strictly linear functions of the dependent variable.
  • One participant points out that if the error term (##\epsilon##) is zero, the functions can be considered linear, but this is context-dependent.
  • Another participant questions the characterization of the line ##x=2## as an "affine linear object," seeking clarification on the distinction between affine transformations and linear transformations.
  • It is noted that both terms (linear and affine) may be necessary in certain contexts, particularly when discussing geometry in a global coordinate system.
  • A later reply emphasizes that linear regression does not require the function itself to be linear, only that it is linear in the parameters being estimated, providing examples of functions that fit this criterion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of the term "linear" in linear regression, with no consensus reached on whether it accurately describes the functions involved. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of this terminology.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential ambiguity in the definitions of linear and affine functions, as well as the context in which the terms are applied. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in terminology when addressing functional relationships in regression analysis.

schniefen
Messages
177
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
It appears to be common to say linear regression, but is this correct?
In linear regression, one estimates parameters that are supposed to be linear with respect to the dependent variable, for instance

##y=\theta_0 e^x+\epsilon \ ,##

or

##y=\theta_0+\theta_1 x_1+\theta_2x_2+...+\theta_n x_n+\epsilon \ . ##
Is it not true that neither ##y(\theta_0)## nor ##y(\theta_0,...,\theta_n)## are linear functions, but rather affine functions of the parameters?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Affine linear is often abbreviated by calling it linear. It's for convenience, and it ##\epsilon=0## in your examples, then it is linear. However, it's not only convenience. E.g. if we consider the tangent line at ##x=2## at the curve ##y=x^2##, then it is an affine linear object on the surrounding ##x,y-##plane. But we also speak of the tangent space at ##x=2##. In that case we have implicitly identified the point ##(2,4)## with the origin of the tangent space and all of a sudden the affine linear line in the plane, became a linear line in the tangent space.

So, as long as not both terms are necessary in a certain context, affine linear is often just called linear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaveE, Dale and schniefen
Could you explain how the line ##x=2## is "an affine linear object on the surrounding ##x,y##-plane"? An affine transformation is a linear transformation plus a translation.

If ##\epsilon \neq 0##, are then both terms necessary?
 
schniefen said:
Could you explain how the line ##x=2## is "an affine linear object on the surrounding ##x,y##-plane"? An affine transformation is a linear transformation plus a translation.

If ##\epsilon \neq 0##, are then both terms necessary?
Both terms are necessary if you have a global coordinate system and you perform geometry. Then the distinction is reasonable. If you only want to say: not curved, then linear will do.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: schniefen
schniefen said:
TL;DR Summary: It appears to be common to say linear regression, but is this correct?

In linear regression, one estimates parameters that are supposed to be linear with respect to the dependent variable, for instance

##y=\theta_0 e^x+\epsilon \ ,##

or

##y=\theta_0+\theta_1 x_1+\theta_2x_2+...+\theta_n x_n+\epsilon \ . ##
Is it not true that neither ##y(\theta_0)## nor ##y(\theta_0,...,\theta_n)## are linear functions, but rather affine functions of the parameters?
In regression you make an assumption about the form of the functional relationship between your response and any predictor(s). LINEAR regression doesn't require the function to be itself linear, only that it be linear in the parameters to be estimated.

This expression would qualify as a functional form we'd lump into linear regression.

## y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_1^2 + \beta_2 \frac{x_2}{x_2^2 + 5} ##

This is not a linear function of the parameters.

## y = \beta_0 e^{\beta_1 x_1 + \beta_2 x_2} ##

since, for given values of the predictors it is a linear function of the betas. You don't need to worry about the affine stuff.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
6K