Uncertainty of the Design and Covariance Matrices in Linear Statistical Model*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Acta Univ. Palacki. Olomuc., Fac. rer. nat., Mathematica 48 (2009) 61–71 Uncertainty of the design and covariance matrices in linear statistical model* Lubomír KUBÁČEK 1, Jaroslav MAREK 2 Department of Mathematical Analysis and Applications of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, tř. 17. listopadu 12, 771 46 Olomouc, Czech Republic 1e-mail: [email protected] 2e-mail: [email protected] (Received January 15, 2009) Abstract The aim of the paper is to determine an influence of uncertainties in design and covariance matrices on estimators in linear regression model. Key words: Linear statistical model, uncertainty, design matrix, covariance matrix. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 62J05 1 Introduction Uncertainties in entries of design and covariance matrices influence the variance of estimators and cause their bias. A problem occurs mainly in a linearization of nonlinear regression models, where the design matrix is created by deriva- tives of some functions. The question is how precise must these derivatives be. Uncertainties of covariance matrices must be suppressed under some reasonable bound as well. The aim of the paper is to give the simple rules which enables us to decide how many ciphers an entry of the mentioned matrices must be consisted of. *Supported by the Council of Czech Government MSM 6 198 959 214. 61 62 Lubomír KUBÁČEK, Jaroslav MAREK 2 Symbols used In the following text a linear regression model (in more detail cf. [2]) is denoted as k Y ∼n (Fβ, Σ), β ∈ R , (1) where Y is an n-dimensional random vector with the mean value E(Y) equal to Fβ and with the covariance matrix Var(Y)=Σ.ThesymbolRk means the k-dimensional linear vector space. The n × k matrix F is given. It is assumed that the rank r(F) of the matrix F is r(F)=k<nand the given matrix Σ is positive definite. The k-dimensional unknown vector parameter β must be estimated on the basis of the realization y of the random vector Y. Symbol (n) ei means n-dimensional vector with the entry 1 at the i-th position; other entries are zero. The matrix of the normal equation FΣ−1F is denoted as C; −1 i,j its (i, j)-th entry is {C}i,j and the (i, j)-th entry of C is {C} . F means the transpose of the matrix F.The(i, j)-th entry of the matrix Σ is σi,j = {Σ}i,j and the i-th component of the vector v is {v}i. The symbol ∂lhY/∂F means ⎛ ⎞ l Y l Y ∂ h , ... ∂ h ∂l Y ⎜ ∂F1,1 ∂F1,k ⎟ h = ⎝ ............... ⎠ , (2) ∂F l Y l Y ∂ h , ... ∂ h ∂Fn,1 ∂Fn,k { } −1 −1 where Fi,j = F i,j,i =1,...,n,j =1,...,k, and lh = h C F Σ for an arbitrary h ∈ Rk, h = 0. The Kronecker multiplication of matrices A and B is denoted as A ⊗ B (in more detail cf. [3]). If A =(a1,...,am),thenvec(A)=(a1,...,am) .The identity matrix is denoted as I. 3 Uncertainty in the design matrix In the following text a sensitivity approach is used, i.e. the influence of uncer- tainty in the design matrix is judged according to the linear term of the Taylor series (cf. also in [1], chpt. VI). The Taylor series of the quantity lhY = h β will be considered. Lemma 3.1 Let h ∈ Rk be an arbitrary vector. It is valid that ∂h β −1 −1 = −l β + Σ vhC−1, l = Σ FC−1h, (3) ∂F h h β = C−1FΣ−1Y, (4) v = Y − Fβ. (5) Uncertainty of the design and covariance matrices. 63 Proof The BLUE (best linear unbiased eastimator) of the linear function ∈ k −1 −1 h(β)=h β, β R ,ish β = lhY = h C F Σ Y.Thus −1 ∂h β ∂C −1 ∂F −1 = h FΣ Y + hC−1 Σ Y ∂Fi,j ∂Fi,j ∂Fi,j and −1 −1 −1 ∂C ∂(F Σ F) ∂F −1 −1 ∂F = = −C−1 Σ F + FΣ C−1 ∂Fi,j ∂Fi,j ∂Fi,j ∂Fi,j − −1 (n) (k) −1 −1 (n) (k) −1 = C ei (ej ) Σ F + F Σ ei (ej ) C − −1 −1 (n) (k) −1 − −1 (k) (n) −1 −1 = C F Σ ei (ej ) C C ej (ei ) Σ FC . It implies ∂h β − (n) (k) −1 −1 − −1 (k) (n) −1 −1 −1 = lhei (ej ) C F Σ Y h C ej (ei ) Σ FC Σ Y ∂Fi,j −1 (k) (n) −1 + h C ej (ei ) Σ Y − (n) (k) −1 (k) (n) −1 = lhe (e ) β + h C e (e ) Σ v i j j i −1 −1 = −lhβ + Σ vh C ,i=1,...,n, j =1,...,k. 2 i,j Lemma 3.2 Let in the model from Lemma 3.1 the symbol δF denote the matrix of uncertainties in the design matrix F.Then ∂h β (i) E Tr δF = − Tr(δFl β ), (6) ∂F h ∂hβ (ii) Var Tr δF = l δFC−1δFl + hC−1δF(M ΣM )+ ∂F h h F F × δFC−1h, (7) where + −1 −1 −1 −1 (MF ΣMF ) = Σ − Σ FC F Σ is the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse of the matrix MF ΣMF (in more detail cf. [3]). Proof The statement (i) is obvious. As far as (ii) is concerned, it is valid that ∂h β ∂h β Var Tr δF = Var [vec(δF)] vec ∂F ∂F −1 −1 = Var [vec(δF)] −(I ⊗ lh)β + (C h) ⊗ Σ v . 64 Lubomír KUBÁČEK, Jaroslav MAREK Since β and v are noncorrelated, Var(β)=C−1 and Var(v)=Σ − FC−1F, we have ∂hβ Var Tr δF =[vec(δF)](I ⊗ l )C−1(I ⊗ l )vec(δF) ∂F h h −1 −1 +[vec(δF)][(C−1h) ⊗ Σ ](Σ − FC−1F)[(hC−1) ⊗ Σ ]vec(δF) −1 ⊗ −1 −1 ⊗ + =[vec(δF)] [C (lhlh)] vec(δF)+[vec(δF)] [(C hh C ) (MF ΣMF ) ] × −1 + −1 −1 vec(δF)=Tr[(δF) lhlhδFC ]+Tr[(δF) (MF ΣMF ) δFC hh C ] −1 −1 + −1 2 = lhδFC (δF) lh + h C (δF) (MF ΣMF ) δFC h. Remark 3.1 Regarding Lemma 3.1 the influence of δF on the estimate of the function hβ, β ∈ Rk, can be evaluated. If δF = 0, then instead of hβ = −1 hC−1FΣ y (y is a realization of Y)weobtain −1 −1 −1 −1 h β˜ ≈ h C F Σ y − Tr[(δF) lhβ ]+Tr[(δF) Σ vh C ] (8) (for practical purposes the values β˜ and y − Fβ˜ canbeusedontherighthand side of the last approximate equality instead of β and v). In an actual case we can judge whether uncertainty δF in the used matrix F satisfy the inequality √ −1 −1 −1 |−Tr[(δF) lhβ ]+Tr[(δF) Σ vh C ]| <ε h C h, where ε>0 is sufficiently small (according to an opinion of a statistician) number. (n) (k) If δF = ei (ej ) Δ,then −1 −1 − Tr[(δF) lhβ ]+Tr[(δF) Σ vh C ]= − (k) (n) (k) (n) −1 −1 = Tr ej (ei ) lhβ +Tr ej (ei ) Σ vh C −{ } {} { −1 } −1 = lh i β j + Σ v i C h j . Remark 3.2 According to Lemma 3.2 the influnce of δF on the estimator of the function hβ, β ∈ Rk, can be evaluated. As far as the bias of the estimator hβ is concerned, if −1 β˜ = (F + δF)Σ−1(F + δF) (F + δF)Σ−1Y, then E(hβ˜) ≈ hβ − Tr (δF)l β , h i.e. the bias of the estimator is − Tr (δF) lhβ . It must be suppressed under some reasonable bound, i.e. it must be √ −1 | Tr (δF) lhβ | <ε h C h. (Instead of β the estimator of it can be used what could be sufficient for practical purposes.) Uncertainty of the design and covariance matrices. 65 (n) (k) For the sake of simplicity let δF = ei (ej ) Δ.Then (k) (n) { } { } Tr (δF) lhβ =ΔTr ej (ei ) lhβ =Δ lh i β j; thus it should be valid √ 1 Δ ε hC−1h . {lh}i{β}j The value √ (F ) −1 1 crit,i,j = ε h C h (9) {lh}i{β}j is the maximum admissible contamination of the (i, j)-th entry√ of the design matrix F. It causes a bias of the estimator hβ˜ not larger than ε hC−1h. As far as the variance of the estimator hβ is concerned, we have −1 −1 h β˜ = h β + Tr − (δF) lhβ +Tr (δF) Σ vh C − −1 −1 =(h lhδF)β + h C δF Σ v and thus ˜ − −1 − −1 + −1 Var(h β)=(h lhδF)C h (δF) lh + h C (δF) (MF ΣMF ) δFC h − −1 −1 −1 = Var(h β) 2lhδFC h + lhδFC (δF) lh + h C (δF) + −1 ×(MF ΣMF ) δFC h. The variance of the estimator with an uncertain design matrix differs from the variance of the estimator with the proper design matrix. The difference is − −1 −1 −1 + −1 2lhδFC h + lhδFC (δF) lh + h C (δF) (MF ΣMF ) δFC h. (n) (k) For the sake of simplicity let δF = ei (ej ) Δ. Then the difference is γ ( ) = h, i,j −1 2 j,j 2 −1 2 + = −2Δ{lh}i{C h}j +Δ {C} ({lh}i) +({C h}j) {(MF ΣMF ) }i,i . −1 Itcanbeassumedthatγh,(i,j) h C h and thus √ 1/2 −1 −1 γh,(i,j) Var(h β˜)= h C h + γ ( ) = h C h 1+ h, i,j hC−1h √ 1 γ ( ) ≈ hC−1h 1+ h, i,j .