1
$\begingroup$

For a basic linear regression:

$$y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x + \varepsilon$$

Its clear to see the interpretation of the estimated parameters:

$$y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x + \varepsilon$$

$$\frac{dy}{dx} = \beta_1$$

A unit increase in $x$ is associated with an estimated $\beta_1$ unit change in $y$.

I am trying to understand the same interoperations for the following models:

Model 1 (log-log): $$\log(y) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \log(x) + \varepsilon$$

Model 2 (log-linear): $$\log(y) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x + \varepsilon$$

I tried to derive these myself.



Model 1:

$$\log(y) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \log(x) + \varepsilon$$

$$\frac{d(\log(y))}{dx} = \beta_1 \frac{d(\log(x))}{dx}$$

$$\frac{1}{y} \cdot \frac{dy}{dx} = \beta_1 \cdot \frac{1}{x}$$

$$\frac{dy}{dx} \cdot \frac{x}{y} = \beta_1$$

$$\beta_1 = \frac{dy}{dx} \cdot \frac{x}{y}$$

$$\beta_1 = \frac{dy/y}{dx/x}$$

From calculus, we know that:

$$\text{Percentage change in }y = \frac{y_{\text{new}} - y_{\text{old}}}{y_{\text{old}}} \times 100\%$$

$$\Delta y = y_{\text{new}} - y_{\text{old}}$$ $$\text{Proportional change in }y = \frac{\Delta y}{y}$$

Thus:

  • $\frac{dy}{y} \approx$ percentage change in $y$
  • $\frac{dx}{x} \approx$ percentage change in $x$

Therefore $\beta_1$ represents the ratio of these percentage changes:

$$\beta_1 = \frac{\text{percentage change in }y}{\text{percentage change in }x}$$


Model 2:

$$\log(y) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x + \varepsilon$$

$$\frac{d\log(y)}{dx} = \beta_1$$

$$\frac{1}{y} \cdot \frac{dy}{dx} = \beta_1$$

$$\frac{dy}{dx} = \beta_1 \cdot y$$

$$\frac{dy/y}{dx} = \beta_1$$

Thus, the interpretation becomes:

$$\beta_1 = \frac{\text{percentage change in }y}{\text{unit change in }x}$$



To conclude:

  • In Model 1, a percent increase in $x$ is associated with an estimated $\beta_1$ percent change in $y$
  • In Model 2, a unit increase in $x$ is associated with an estimated $\beta_1$ percent change in $y$

Are these the correct interpretations?



Based on Greg H's comments, I tried to correct the derivations for Model 2:

$$\log(y) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x + \varepsilon$$

$$e^{\log(y)} = e^{\beta_0 + \beta_1 x + \varepsilon}$$ $$y = e^{\beta_0} \cdot e^{\beta_1 x} \cdot e^{\varepsilon}$$

Define $A = e^{\beta_0}$ (ignore the error term): $$y = A \cdot e^{\beta_1 x}$$

Define the original value $y_1$ (at $x_1$) and the new value $y_2$ (at $x_2 = x_1 + 1$):

At $x_1$: $$y_1 = A \cdot e^{\beta_1 x_1}$$

At $x_2 = x_1 + 1$: $$y_2 = A \cdot e^{\beta_1 (x_1 + 1)}$$ $$y_2 = A \cdot e^{\beta_1 x_1} \cdot e^{\beta_1}$$ $$y_2 = y_1 \cdot e^{\beta_1}$$

Thus, the ratio of the new value to the original value is: $$\frac{y_2}{y_1} = e^{\beta_1}$$

$$\Delta y = y_2 - y_1 = y_1 \cdot e^{\beta_1} - y_1 = y_1(e^{\beta_1} - 1)$$

And the proportional change is: $$\frac{\Delta y}{y_1} = \frac{y_1(e^{\beta_1} - 1)}{y_1} = e^{\beta_1} - 1$$

$$\text{Percentage change in } y = (e^{\beta_1} - 1) \times 100\%$$

When $x$ increases by one unit, $y$ changes by $(e^{\beta_1} - 1) \times 100\%$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ These are all FAQs, so please search our site for the answers. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28 at 21:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, you could just try it out and see if you are right. That is, just plug in numbers and see how things change. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 1 at 1:14

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

For small changes in $x$, your interpretations will probably be correct for the first model.  But unlike with the linear model (where the interpretation of the slope remains constant over the entire scope of the function), this does not hold globally for the two models you provide.

Simply put, the first model is a power model: $$y = A \cdot x^b$$ where $A = e^{\beta_0}$ and $b = \beta_1$.  Thus, the “better” interpretation of the slope coefficient in the transformed linear model is as the estimated power for the power curve.

The second model is an exponential model: $$y= A\cdot e^{bx}$$ where $A= e^{\beta_0}$ and $b = \beta_1$.  Thus, the “better” interpretation of the slope coefficient in the transformed linear model is as the growth/decay rate for the exponential curve.

Again, in each case, the use of the word better is with regards to the global aspect of the model being estimated.

Lastly, I believe the proportional change element proposed for model 2 is actually not correct.  For small changes in $x$, the slope would be the relative change, so the percent change would be $\beta_1 - 1$.  (This should be easily derivable from the exponential model provided here.)

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Gregg H: thanks for the feedback ... if you look at my question, I tried to update the derivations according to your analysis for the second model. Do you agree with this? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 2 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ That is how I would express a percentage increase. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 2 at 17:19
  • $\begingroup$ thank you for confirming the updated analysis. I have accepted your answer as the official answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 2 at 18:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.