PlanetMath (more info)
 Math for the people, by the people. Sponsor PlanetMath
Encyclopedia | Requests | Forums | Docs | Wiki | Random | RSS  
Login
create new user
name:
pass:
forget your password?
Main Menu
Owner confidence rating: Very high Entry average rating: No information on entry rating
Occam's razor (Definition)

The following example in statistics illustrates the principle of Occam's razor. See Article on Occam's Razor on Wikipedia for a thorough discussion, mathematical or not, of this principle, which is also known as the principle of parsimony.

Example in statistics:

Given the following ten pairs of hypothetical observations of continuous response variable $Y$ and continuous explanatory variable $X$ :

$X$ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
$Y$ 11 13 15 15 16 18 21 22 22 24
be fitted using a linear regression model given by $$Y=\alpha + \beta X.$$ Using the method of least squares, the regression coefficients are found to be $\alpha=9.867$ and $\beta=1.424$ , so that the regression line is $$Y=9.867+1.424X.$$ The p-values for both regression coefficients are found to be less than 0.0001 and the p-value for the overall fit of the model is also less than 0.0001. The p-value analysis can be summarized by the following table:
  $\alpha$ $\beta$ overall fit of model
p-value $<0.0001$ $<0.0001$ $<0.0001$
This indicates that the linear regression equation fits the data very well.

Next, fit the data using a 2nd order polynomial regression model, given by $$Y=\alpha + \beta X + \gamma X^2.$$ Least square estimation shows that the regression equation is given by $$Y=9.783 + 1.466X - 0.004X^2.$$ The following table shows the result of the p-value analysis of the 2nd order polynomial regression model:

  $\alpha$ $\beta$ $\gamma$ overall fit of model
p-value $<0.0001$ $0.0085$ 0.9188 $<0.0001$
The p-value for the fit of the overall model suggests that the polynomial regression equation also fits the data well. The same can be said about the estimates of the regression coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$ . However, the coefficient $\gamma=-0.004$ shows that the additional term does not contribute too much to the overall fit of the model to the observations. Furthermore, its p-value is very high, indicating that the $X^2$ term is not significant.

In light of the above analysis, we prefer the simpler model $Y=\alpha + \beta X$ over the more complicated one $Y=\alpha + \beta X + \gamma X^2$ . This example shows that, in statistical modeling, when a simpler, easier to interpret model exists in the presence of more complicated ones, the simpler one should be chosen. This is Occam's razor at work!




"Occam's razor" is owned by CWoo. [ full author list (4) | owner history (1) ]
(view preamble | get metadata)

View style:

Other names:  law of parsimony
Log in to rate this entry.
(view current ratings)

Cross-references: term, coefficient, estimates, polynomial, polynomial regression model, order, equation, analysis, p-values, line, regression coefficients, least squares, linear regression model, explanatory variable, response variable, continuous, observations, statistics
There are 6 references to this entry.

This is version 6 of Occam's razor, born on 2004-10-14, modified 2007-12-18.
Object id is 6371, canonical name is OccamsRazor.
Accessed 8523 times total.

Classification:
AMS MSC00A20 (General :: General and miscellaneous specific topics :: Dictionaries and other general reference works)
 62-07 (Statistics :: Data analysis)
 62A01 (Statistics :: Foundational and philosophical topics)

Pending Errata and Addenda
None.
Discussion
Style: Expand: Order:
forum policy
Occam's Razor, PM vs. WIkipedia by matte on 2004-10-14 14:27:10
How should we go about with entries that are already
in a very finished state at Wikipedia? For example,
in the case of this entry, it feels like a waste of
time composing a new entry, when there already exists
a fine article on Wikipedia. Also, I think this goes
against the whole principle of FDL.

As I understand things (and I might be wrong),
Wikipedia uses almost the same license as PM; so
we could copy material to PM from Wikipedia as long as we credit
the authors that have written the entry. Is this right?
How should such crediting be done? Is it for example
enough to mention that this entry is based on the
Wikipedia article xxx, version yyy?

I am not proposing a massive copy operation from W.
into PM as is. Clearly any material added to PM needs
to be scrutinized so that it fits into the existing PM
definitions.
 - Quality\neq quantity.
 - all material should be verified that it is actually
 real mathematics. Are there any errors in the material.
 - Wikipedia entries tend to be very long, and some
 editing might be in place. For example, the
 Occam's Razor entry contains much information that
 has nothing to do with its use in mathematics.
 - Should wiki-based entries be treated as "normal" entries
 (editing policy/points)?

One approach would be to create "link" entries that are
essentially just links to an external resource. Much like
this entry is in its current state. For example, while
we eventually will want to have our own biography entries,
at the moment there are much better entries for example
on Wikipedia and on

 http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/

With this in mind, it would make sense to create an
'Newton' entry that, say is world editable, and just contains
links to the aforementioned sites. This way, Newton will
be linked at PM, and over time we can build up a real biography
entry. This is the 'seed entry' idea that has been up on
discussion before.

What do you think?

Matte
[ reply | up ]

Interact
post | correct | update request | add derivation | add example | add (any)