What is the intuitive meaning of having a linear relationship between the logs of two variables?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







19












$begingroup$


I have two variables which don't show much correlation when plotted against each other as is, but a very clear linear relationship when I plot the logs of each variable agains the other.



So I would end up with a model of the type:



$$log(Y) = a log(X) + b$$ , which is great mathematically but doesn't seem to have the explanatory value of a regular linear model.



How can I interpret such a model?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've nothing substantial to add to the existing answers, but a logarithm in the outcome and the predictor is an elasticity. Searches for that term should find some good resources for interpreting that relationship, which is not very intuitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Upper_Case
    Mar 26 at 18:30










  • $begingroup$
    The interpretation of a log-log model, where the dependent variable is log(y) and the independent variable is log(x), is: $%Δ=β_1%Δx$.
    $endgroup$
    – C Thom
    Mar 27 at 15:52








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The complementary log-log link is an ideal GLM specification when the outcome is binary (risk model) and the exposure is cumulative, such as number of sexual partners vs. HIV infection. jstor.org/stable/2532454
    $endgroup$
    – AdamO
    Mar 27 at 15:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alexis you can see the sticky points if you overlay the curves. Try curve(exp(-exp(x)), from=-5, to=5) vs curve(plogis(x), from=-5, to=5). The concavity accelerates. If the risk of event from a single encounter was $p$, then the risk after the second event should be $1-(1-p)^2$ and so on, that's a probabilistic shape logit won't capture. High high exposures would skew logistic regression results more dramatically (falsely according to the prior probability rule). Some simulation would show you this.
    $endgroup$
    – AdamO
    Mar 27 at 20:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AdamO There's probably a pedagogical paper to be written incorporating such a simulation which motivates how to chose a particular dichotomous outcome link out of the three, including situations where it does and does not make a difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexis
    Mar 27 at 21:05




















19












$begingroup$


I have two variables which don't show much correlation when plotted against each other as is, but a very clear linear relationship when I plot the logs of each variable agains the other.



So I would end up with a model of the type:



$$log(Y) = a log(X) + b$$ , which is great mathematically but doesn't seem to have the explanatory value of a regular linear model.



How can I interpret such a model?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've nothing substantial to add to the existing answers, but a logarithm in the outcome and the predictor is an elasticity. Searches for that term should find some good resources for interpreting that relationship, which is not very intuitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Upper_Case
    Mar 26 at 18:30










  • $begingroup$
    The interpretation of a log-log model, where the dependent variable is log(y) and the independent variable is log(x), is: $%Δ=β_1%Δx$.
    $endgroup$
    – C Thom
    Mar 27 at 15:52








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The complementary log-log link is an ideal GLM specification when the outcome is binary (risk model) and the exposure is cumulative, such as number of sexual partners vs. HIV infection. jstor.org/stable/2532454
    $endgroup$
    – AdamO
    Mar 27 at 15:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alexis you can see the sticky points if you overlay the curves. Try curve(exp(-exp(x)), from=-5, to=5) vs curve(plogis(x), from=-5, to=5). The concavity accelerates. If the risk of event from a single encounter was $p$, then the risk after the second event should be $1-(1-p)^2$ and so on, that's a probabilistic shape logit won't capture. High high exposures would skew logistic regression results more dramatically (falsely according to the prior probability rule). Some simulation would show you this.
    $endgroup$
    – AdamO
    Mar 27 at 20:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AdamO There's probably a pedagogical paper to be written incorporating such a simulation which motivates how to chose a particular dichotomous outcome link out of the three, including situations where it does and does not make a difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexis
    Mar 27 at 21:05
















19












19








19


2



$begingroup$


I have two variables which don't show much correlation when plotted against each other as is, but a very clear linear relationship when I plot the logs of each variable agains the other.



So I would end up with a model of the type:



$$log(Y) = a log(X) + b$$ , which is great mathematically but doesn't seem to have the explanatory value of a regular linear model.



How can I interpret such a model?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I have two variables which don't show much correlation when plotted against each other as is, but a very clear linear relationship when I plot the logs of each variable agains the other.



So I would end up with a model of the type:



$$log(Y) = a log(X) + b$$ , which is great mathematically but doesn't seem to have the explanatory value of a regular linear model.



How can I interpret such a model?







regression correlation log






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 26 at 20:48









StubbornAtom

2,8691532




2,8691532










asked Mar 26 at 15:57









Akaike's ChildrenAkaike's Children

1336




1336








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've nothing substantial to add to the existing answers, but a logarithm in the outcome and the predictor is an elasticity. Searches for that term should find some good resources for interpreting that relationship, which is not very intuitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Upper_Case
    Mar 26 at 18:30










  • $begingroup$
    The interpretation of a log-log model, where the dependent variable is log(y) and the independent variable is log(x), is: $%Δ=β_1%Δx$.
    $endgroup$
    – C Thom
    Mar 27 at 15:52








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The complementary log-log link is an ideal GLM specification when the outcome is binary (risk model) and the exposure is cumulative, such as number of sexual partners vs. HIV infection. jstor.org/stable/2532454
    $endgroup$
    – AdamO
    Mar 27 at 15:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alexis you can see the sticky points if you overlay the curves. Try curve(exp(-exp(x)), from=-5, to=5) vs curve(plogis(x), from=-5, to=5). The concavity accelerates. If the risk of event from a single encounter was $p$, then the risk after the second event should be $1-(1-p)^2$ and so on, that's a probabilistic shape logit won't capture. High high exposures would skew logistic regression results more dramatically (falsely according to the prior probability rule). Some simulation would show you this.
    $endgroup$
    – AdamO
    Mar 27 at 20:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AdamO There's probably a pedagogical paper to be written incorporating such a simulation which motivates how to chose a particular dichotomous outcome link out of the three, including situations where it does and does not make a difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexis
    Mar 27 at 21:05
















  • 4




    $begingroup$
    I've nothing substantial to add to the existing answers, but a logarithm in the outcome and the predictor is an elasticity. Searches for that term should find some good resources for interpreting that relationship, which is not very intuitive.
    $endgroup$
    – Upper_Case
    Mar 26 at 18:30










  • $begingroup$
    The interpretation of a log-log model, where the dependent variable is log(y) and the independent variable is log(x), is: $%Δ=β_1%Δx$.
    $endgroup$
    – C Thom
    Mar 27 at 15:52








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    The complementary log-log link is an ideal GLM specification when the outcome is binary (risk model) and the exposure is cumulative, such as number of sexual partners vs. HIV infection. jstor.org/stable/2532454
    $endgroup$
    – AdamO
    Mar 27 at 15:58






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Alexis you can see the sticky points if you overlay the curves. Try curve(exp(-exp(x)), from=-5, to=5) vs curve(plogis(x), from=-5, to=5). The concavity accelerates. If the risk of event from a single encounter was $p$, then the risk after the second event should be $1-(1-p)^2$ and so on, that's a probabilistic shape logit won't capture. High high exposures would skew logistic regression results more dramatically (falsely according to the prior probability rule). Some simulation would show you this.
    $endgroup$
    – AdamO
    Mar 27 at 20:52






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AdamO There's probably a pedagogical paper to be written incorporating such a simulation which motivates how to chose a particular dichotomous outcome link out of the three, including situations where it does and does not make a difference.
    $endgroup$
    – Alexis
    Mar 27 at 21:05










4




4




$begingroup$
I've nothing substantial to add to the existing answers, but a logarithm in the outcome and the predictor is an elasticity. Searches for that term should find some good resources for interpreting that relationship, which is not very intuitive.
$endgroup$
– Upper_Case
Mar 26 at 18:30




$begingroup$
I've nothing substantial to add to the existing answers, but a logarithm in the outcome and the predictor is an elasticity. Searches for that term should find some good resources for interpreting that relationship, which is not very intuitive.
$endgroup$
– Upper_Case
Mar 26 at 18:30












$begingroup$
The interpretation of a log-log model, where the dependent variable is log(y) and the independent variable is log(x), is: $%Δ=β_1%Δx$.
$endgroup$
– C Thom
Mar 27 at 15:52






$begingroup$
The interpretation of a log-log model, where the dependent variable is log(y) and the independent variable is log(x), is: $%Δ=β_1%Δx$.
$endgroup$
– C Thom
Mar 27 at 15:52






3




3




$begingroup$
The complementary log-log link is an ideal GLM specification when the outcome is binary (risk model) and the exposure is cumulative, such as number of sexual partners vs. HIV infection. jstor.org/stable/2532454
$endgroup$
– AdamO
Mar 27 at 15:58




$begingroup$
The complementary log-log link is an ideal GLM specification when the outcome is binary (risk model) and the exposure is cumulative, such as number of sexual partners vs. HIV infection. jstor.org/stable/2532454
$endgroup$
– AdamO
Mar 27 at 15:58




1




1




$begingroup$
@Alexis you can see the sticky points if you overlay the curves. Try curve(exp(-exp(x)), from=-5, to=5) vs curve(plogis(x), from=-5, to=5). The concavity accelerates. If the risk of event from a single encounter was $p$, then the risk after the second event should be $1-(1-p)^2$ and so on, that's a probabilistic shape logit won't capture. High high exposures would skew logistic regression results more dramatically (falsely according to the prior probability rule). Some simulation would show you this.
$endgroup$
– AdamO
Mar 27 at 20:52




$begingroup$
@Alexis you can see the sticky points if you overlay the curves. Try curve(exp(-exp(x)), from=-5, to=5) vs curve(plogis(x), from=-5, to=5). The concavity accelerates. If the risk of event from a single encounter was $p$, then the risk after the second event should be $1-(1-p)^2$ and so on, that's a probabilistic shape logit won't capture. High high exposures would skew logistic regression results more dramatically (falsely according to the prior probability rule). Some simulation would show you this.
$endgroup$
– AdamO
Mar 27 at 20:52




1




1




$begingroup$
@AdamO There's probably a pedagogical paper to be written incorporating such a simulation which motivates how to chose a particular dichotomous outcome link out of the three, including situations where it does and does not make a difference.
$endgroup$
– Alexis
Mar 27 at 21:05






$begingroup$
@AdamO There's probably a pedagogical paper to be written incorporating such a simulation which motivates how to chose a particular dichotomous outcome link out of the three, including situations where it does and does not make a difference.
$endgroup$
– Alexis
Mar 27 at 21:05












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















27












$begingroup$

You just need to take exponential of both sides of the equation and you will get a potential relation, that may make sense for some data.



$$log(Y) = alog(X) + b$$



$$exp(log(Y)) = exp(a log(X) + b)$$



$$Y = e^bcdot X^a$$



And since $e^b$ is just a parameter that can take any positive value, this model is equivalent to:



$$Y=c cdot X^a$$



It should be noted that model expression should include the error term, and these change of variables has interesting effects on it:



$$log(Y) = a log(X) + b + epsilon$$



$$Y = e^bcdot X^acdot exp(epsilon)$$



That is, your model with a additive errors abiding to the conditions for OLS (normally distributed errors with constant variance) is equivalent to a potential model with multiplicative errors whose logaritm follows a normal distribution with constant variance.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    OP may be interested to know that this distribution has a name, the log-normal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution
    $endgroup$
    – gardenhead
    Mar 26 at 19:40






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What about the effect of Jensen's inequality? Generally for convex g, $E[g(X)]≥g(E[X])$
    $endgroup$
    – Stats
    Mar 26 at 21:17





















14












$begingroup$

You can take your model $log(Y)=alog(X)+b$ and calculate the total differential, you will end up with something like :
$$frac{1}YdY=afrac{1}XdX$$
which yields to
$$frac{dY}{dX}frac{X}{Y}=a$$



Hence one simple interpretation of the coefficient $a$ will be the percent change in $Y$ for a percent change in $X$.
This implies furthermore that the variable $Y$ growths at a constant fraction ($a$) of the growth rate of $X$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    So if the log-log plot is linear, that would imply a constant growth rate?
    $endgroup$
    – Dimitriy V. Masterov
    Mar 26 at 17:22










  • $begingroup$
    Not actually, the growth rate of $Y$ will be constant if and only if $a=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – RScrlli
    Mar 26 at 18:18










  • $begingroup$
    Not over time, the growth rate with respect to the growth in x.
    $endgroup$
    – Dimitriy V. Masterov
    Mar 26 at 18:21










  • $begingroup$
    reordering doesn't help, i'd remove it
    $endgroup$
    – Aksakal
    Mar 26 at 18:21






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DimitriyV.Masterov Ok, then since the $log(Y)$ is linear in $log(X)$ it means that the variable $Y$ grows at a constant fraction of the growth rate of $X$. Is there something wrong with my answer according to you?
    $endgroup$
    – RScrlli
    Mar 26 at 18:36



















7












$begingroup$

Intuitively $log$ gives us the order of magnitude of a variable, so we can view the relationship as the orders of magnitudes of the two variables are linearly related. For example, increasing the predictor by one order of magnitude may be associated with an increase of three orders of magnitude of the response.



When plotting using a log-log plot we hope to see a linear relationship.
Using an example from this question, we can check the linear model assumptions:



log-log






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    +1 for an intuitive answer to an unintuitive concept. However, the image you have included clearly violates constant error variance across the predictor.
    $endgroup$
    – Frans Rodenburg
    Mar 27 at 7:24








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The answer is right, but authorship attribution is wrong. The image shouldn't be attributed to Google Images but, at least, to the web page where it is to be found, that can be find out just by clicking in Google images.
    $endgroup$
    – Pere
    Mar 27 at 8:42










  • $begingroup$
    @Pere I cannot find the original source of the image unfortunately (at least using reverse image search)
    $endgroup$
    – qwr
    Mar 27 at 9:33










  • $begingroup$
    It seems to come originally from diagramss.us though that site is down and most of its pages are not in the Web Archive apart from its homepage
    $endgroup$
    – Henry
    Mar 28 at 9:03



















4












$begingroup$

Reconciling the answer by @Rscrill with actual discrete data, consider



$$log(Y_t) = alog(X_t) + b,;;; log(Y_{t-1}) = alog(X_{t-1}) + b$$



$$implies log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = aleft[log(X_t)-log(X_{t-1})right]$$



But



$$log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = logleft(frac{Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) equiv logleft(frac{Y_{t-1}+Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) = logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right)$$



$frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}$ is the percentage change of $Y$ between periods $t-1$ and $t$, or the growth rate of $Y_t$, say $g_{Y_{t}}$. When it is smaller than $0.1$, we have that an acceptable approximation is



$$logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) approx frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}=g_{Y_{t}}$$



Therefore we get



$$g_{Y_{t}}approx ag_{X_{t}}$$



which validates in empirical studies the theoretical treatment of @Rscrill.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    This is probably what a mathematician would call intuitive :)
    $endgroup$
    – Richard Hardy
    Mar 28 at 10:59



















0












$begingroup$

A linear relationship between the logs is equivalent to a power law dependence:
$$Y sim X^alpha$$
In physics such behavior means that the system is scale free or scale invariant. As an example, if $X$ is distance or time this means that the dependence on $X$ cannot be characterized by a characteristic length or time scale (as opposed to exponential decays). As a result, such a system exhibits a long-range dependence of the $Y$ on $X$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












    protected by kjetil b halvorsen Apr 2 at 7:15



    Thank you for your interest in this question.
    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    27












    $begingroup$

    You just need to take exponential of both sides of the equation and you will get a potential relation, that may make sense for some data.



    $$log(Y) = alog(X) + b$$



    $$exp(log(Y)) = exp(a log(X) + b)$$



    $$Y = e^bcdot X^a$$



    And since $e^b$ is just a parameter that can take any positive value, this model is equivalent to:



    $$Y=c cdot X^a$$



    It should be noted that model expression should include the error term, and these change of variables has interesting effects on it:



    $$log(Y) = a log(X) + b + epsilon$$



    $$Y = e^bcdot X^acdot exp(epsilon)$$



    That is, your model with a additive errors abiding to the conditions for OLS (normally distributed errors with constant variance) is equivalent to a potential model with multiplicative errors whose logaritm follows a normal distribution with constant variance.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      OP may be interested to know that this distribution has a name, the log-normal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution
      $endgroup$
      – gardenhead
      Mar 26 at 19:40






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      What about the effect of Jensen's inequality? Generally for convex g, $E[g(X)]≥g(E[X])$
      $endgroup$
      – Stats
      Mar 26 at 21:17


















    27












    $begingroup$

    You just need to take exponential of both sides of the equation and you will get a potential relation, that may make sense for some data.



    $$log(Y) = alog(X) + b$$



    $$exp(log(Y)) = exp(a log(X) + b)$$



    $$Y = e^bcdot X^a$$



    And since $e^b$ is just a parameter that can take any positive value, this model is equivalent to:



    $$Y=c cdot X^a$$



    It should be noted that model expression should include the error term, and these change of variables has interesting effects on it:



    $$log(Y) = a log(X) + b + epsilon$$



    $$Y = e^bcdot X^acdot exp(epsilon)$$



    That is, your model with a additive errors abiding to the conditions for OLS (normally distributed errors with constant variance) is equivalent to a potential model with multiplicative errors whose logaritm follows a normal distribution with constant variance.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      OP may be interested to know that this distribution has a name, the log-normal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution
      $endgroup$
      – gardenhead
      Mar 26 at 19:40






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      What about the effect of Jensen's inequality? Generally for convex g, $E[g(X)]≥g(E[X])$
      $endgroup$
      – Stats
      Mar 26 at 21:17
















    27












    27








    27





    $begingroup$

    You just need to take exponential of both sides of the equation and you will get a potential relation, that may make sense for some data.



    $$log(Y) = alog(X) + b$$



    $$exp(log(Y)) = exp(a log(X) + b)$$



    $$Y = e^bcdot X^a$$



    And since $e^b$ is just a parameter that can take any positive value, this model is equivalent to:



    $$Y=c cdot X^a$$



    It should be noted that model expression should include the error term, and these change of variables has interesting effects on it:



    $$log(Y) = a log(X) + b + epsilon$$



    $$Y = e^bcdot X^acdot exp(epsilon)$$



    That is, your model with a additive errors abiding to the conditions for OLS (normally distributed errors with constant variance) is equivalent to a potential model with multiplicative errors whose logaritm follows a normal distribution with constant variance.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    You just need to take exponential of both sides of the equation and you will get a potential relation, that may make sense for some data.



    $$log(Y) = alog(X) + b$$



    $$exp(log(Y)) = exp(a log(X) + b)$$



    $$Y = e^bcdot X^a$$



    And since $e^b$ is just a parameter that can take any positive value, this model is equivalent to:



    $$Y=c cdot X^a$$



    It should be noted that model expression should include the error term, and these change of variables has interesting effects on it:



    $$log(Y) = a log(X) + b + epsilon$$



    $$Y = e^bcdot X^acdot exp(epsilon)$$



    That is, your model with a additive errors abiding to the conditions for OLS (normally distributed errors with constant variance) is equivalent to a potential model with multiplicative errors whose logaritm follows a normal distribution with constant variance.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Mar 26 at 21:12

























    answered Mar 26 at 16:04









    PerePere

    4,6831820




    4,6831820








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      OP may be interested to know that this distribution has a name, the log-normal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution
      $endgroup$
      – gardenhead
      Mar 26 at 19:40






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      What about the effect of Jensen's inequality? Generally for convex g, $E[g(X)]≥g(E[X])$
      $endgroup$
      – Stats
      Mar 26 at 21:17
















    • 3




      $begingroup$
      OP may be interested to know that this distribution has a name, the log-normal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution
      $endgroup$
      – gardenhead
      Mar 26 at 19:40






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      What about the effect of Jensen's inequality? Generally for convex g, $E[g(X)]≥g(E[X])$
      $endgroup$
      – Stats
      Mar 26 at 21:17










    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    OP may be interested to know that this distribution has a name, the log-normal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution
    $endgroup$
    – gardenhead
    Mar 26 at 19:40




    $begingroup$
    OP may be interested to know that this distribution has a name, the log-normal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-normal_distribution
    $endgroup$
    – gardenhead
    Mar 26 at 19:40




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    What about the effect of Jensen's inequality? Generally for convex g, $E[g(X)]≥g(E[X])$
    $endgroup$
    – Stats
    Mar 26 at 21:17






    $begingroup$
    What about the effect of Jensen's inequality? Generally for convex g, $E[g(X)]≥g(E[X])$
    $endgroup$
    – Stats
    Mar 26 at 21:17















    14












    $begingroup$

    You can take your model $log(Y)=alog(X)+b$ and calculate the total differential, you will end up with something like :
    $$frac{1}YdY=afrac{1}XdX$$
    which yields to
    $$frac{dY}{dX}frac{X}{Y}=a$$



    Hence one simple interpretation of the coefficient $a$ will be the percent change in $Y$ for a percent change in $X$.
    This implies furthermore that the variable $Y$ growths at a constant fraction ($a$) of the growth rate of $X$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      So if the log-log plot is linear, that would imply a constant growth rate?
      $endgroup$
      – Dimitriy V. Masterov
      Mar 26 at 17:22










    • $begingroup$
      Not actually, the growth rate of $Y$ will be constant if and only if $a=0$.
      $endgroup$
      – RScrlli
      Mar 26 at 18:18










    • $begingroup$
      Not over time, the growth rate with respect to the growth in x.
      $endgroup$
      – Dimitriy V. Masterov
      Mar 26 at 18:21










    • $begingroup$
      reordering doesn't help, i'd remove it
      $endgroup$
      – Aksakal
      Mar 26 at 18:21






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DimitriyV.Masterov Ok, then since the $log(Y)$ is linear in $log(X)$ it means that the variable $Y$ grows at a constant fraction of the growth rate of $X$. Is there something wrong with my answer according to you?
      $endgroup$
      – RScrlli
      Mar 26 at 18:36
















    14












    $begingroup$

    You can take your model $log(Y)=alog(X)+b$ and calculate the total differential, you will end up with something like :
    $$frac{1}YdY=afrac{1}XdX$$
    which yields to
    $$frac{dY}{dX}frac{X}{Y}=a$$



    Hence one simple interpretation of the coefficient $a$ will be the percent change in $Y$ for a percent change in $X$.
    This implies furthermore that the variable $Y$ growths at a constant fraction ($a$) of the growth rate of $X$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      So if the log-log plot is linear, that would imply a constant growth rate?
      $endgroup$
      – Dimitriy V. Masterov
      Mar 26 at 17:22










    • $begingroup$
      Not actually, the growth rate of $Y$ will be constant if and only if $a=0$.
      $endgroup$
      – RScrlli
      Mar 26 at 18:18










    • $begingroup$
      Not over time, the growth rate with respect to the growth in x.
      $endgroup$
      – Dimitriy V. Masterov
      Mar 26 at 18:21










    • $begingroup$
      reordering doesn't help, i'd remove it
      $endgroup$
      – Aksakal
      Mar 26 at 18:21






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DimitriyV.Masterov Ok, then since the $log(Y)$ is linear in $log(X)$ it means that the variable $Y$ grows at a constant fraction of the growth rate of $X$. Is there something wrong with my answer according to you?
      $endgroup$
      – RScrlli
      Mar 26 at 18:36














    14












    14








    14





    $begingroup$

    You can take your model $log(Y)=alog(X)+b$ and calculate the total differential, you will end up with something like :
    $$frac{1}YdY=afrac{1}XdX$$
    which yields to
    $$frac{dY}{dX}frac{X}{Y}=a$$



    Hence one simple interpretation of the coefficient $a$ will be the percent change in $Y$ for a percent change in $X$.
    This implies furthermore that the variable $Y$ growths at a constant fraction ($a$) of the growth rate of $X$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    You can take your model $log(Y)=alog(X)+b$ and calculate the total differential, you will end up with something like :
    $$frac{1}YdY=afrac{1}XdX$$
    which yields to
    $$frac{dY}{dX}frac{X}{Y}=a$$



    Hence one simple interpretation of the coefficient $a$ will be the percent change in $Y$ for a percent change in $X$.
    This implies furthermore that the variable $Y$ growths at a constant fraction ($a$) of the growth rate of $X$.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Mar 26 at 18:38

























    answered Mar 26 at 16:41









    RScrlliRScrlli

    232112




    232112












    • $begingroup$
      So if the log-log plot is linear, that would imply a constant growth rate?
      $endgroup$
      – Dimitriy V. Masterov
      Mar 26 at 17:22










    • $begingroup$
      Not actually, the growth rate of $Y$ will be constant if and only if $a=0$.
      $endgroup$
      – RScrlli
      Mar 26 at 18:18










    • $begingroup$
      Not over time, the growth rate with respect to the growth in x.
      $endgroup$
      – Dimitriy V. Masterov
      Mar 26 at 18:21










    • $begingroup$
      reordering doesn't help, i'd remove it
      $endgroup$
      – Aksakal
      Mar 26 at 18:21






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DimitriyV.Masterov Ok, then since the $log(Y)$ is linear in $log(X)$ it means that the variable $Y$ grows at a constant fraction of the growth rate of $X$. Is there something wrong with my answer according to you?
      $endgroup$
      – RScrlli
      Mar 26 at 18:36


















    • $begingroup$
      So if the log-log plot is linear, that would imply a constant growth rate?
      $endgroup$
      – Dimitriy V. Masterov
      Mar 26 at 17:22










    • $begingroup$
      Not actually, the growth rate of $Y$ will be constant if and only if $a=0$.
      $endgroup$
      – RScrlli
      Mar 26 at 18:18










    • $begingroup$
      Not over time, the growth rate with respect to the growth in x.
      $endgroup$
      – Dimitriy V. Masterov
      Mar 26 at 18:21










    • $begingroup$
      reordering doesn't help, i'd remove it
      $endgroup$
      – Aksakal
      Mar 26 at 18:21






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DimitriyV.Masterov Ok, then since the $log(Y)$ is linear in $log(X)$ it means that the variable $Y$ grows at a constant fraction of the growth rate of $X$. Is there something wrong with my answer according to you?
      $endgroup$
      – RScrlli
      Mar 26 at 18:36
















    $begingroup$
    So if the log-log plot is linear, that would imply a constant growth rate?
    $endgroup$
    – Dimitriy V. Masterov
    Mar 26 at 17:22




    $begingroup$
    So if the log-log plot is linear, that would imply a constant growth rate?
    $endgroup$
    – Dimitriy V. Masterov
    Mar 26 at 17:22












    $begingroup$
    Not actually, the growth rate of $Y$ will be constant if and only if $a=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – RScrlli
    Mar 26 at 18:18




    $begingroup$
    Not actually, the growth rate of $Y$ will be constant if and only if $a=0$.
    $endgroup$
    – RScrlli
    Mar 26 at 18:18












    $begingroup$
    Not over time, the growth rate with respect to the growth in x.
    $endgroup$
    – Dimitriy V. Masterov
    Mar 26 at 18:21




    $begingroup$
    Not over time, the growth rate with respect to the growth in x.
    $endgroup$
    – Dimitriy V. Masterov
    Mar 26 at 18:21












    $begingroup$
    reordering doesn't help, i'd remove it
    $endgroup$
    – Aksakal
    Mar 26 at 18:21




    $begingroup$
    reordering doesn't help, i'd remove it
    $endgroup$
    – Aksakal
    Mar 26 at 18:21




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @DimitriyV.Masterov Ok, then since the $log(Y)$ is linear in $log(X)$ it means that the variable $Y$ grows at a constant fraction of the growth rate of $X$. Is there something wrong with my answer according to you?
    $endgroup$
    – RScrlli
    Mar 26 at 18:36




    $begingroup$
    @DimitriyV.Masterov Ok, then since the $log(Y)$ is linear in $log(X)$ it means that the variable $Y$ grows at a constant fraction of the growth rate of $X$. Is there something wrong with my answer according to you?
    $endgroup$
    – RScrlli
    Mar 26 at 18:36











    7












    $begingroup$

    Intuitively $log$ gives us the order of magnitude of a variable, so we can view the relationship as the orders of magnitudes of the two variables are linearly related. For example, increasing the predictor by one order of magnitude may be associated with an increase of three orders of magnitude of the response.



    When plotting using a log-log plot we hope to see a linear relationship.
    Using an example from this question, we can check the linear model assumptions:



    log-log






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      +1 for an intuitive answer to an unintuitive concept. However, the image you have included clearly violates constant error variance across the predictor.
      $endgroup$
      – Frans Rodenburg
      Mar 27 at 7:24








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The answer is right, but authorship attribution is wrong. The image shouldn't be attributed to Google Images but, at least, to the web page where it is to be found, that can be find out just by clicking in Google images.
      $endgroup$
      – Pere
      Mar 27 at 8:42










    • $begingroup$
      @Pere I cannot find the original source of the image unfortunately (at least using reverse image search)
      $endgroup$
      – qwr
      Mar 27 at 9:33










    • $begingroup$
      It seems to come originally from diagramss.us though that site is down and most of its pages are not in the Web Archive apart from its homepage
      $endgroup$
      – Henry
      Mar 28 at 9:03
















    7












    $begingroup$

    Intuitively $log$ gives us the order of magnitude of a variable, so we can view the relationship as the orders of magnitudes of the two variables are linearly related. For example, increasing the predictor by one order of magnitude may be associated with an increase of three orders of magnitude of the response.



    When plotting using a log-log plot we hope to see a linear relationship.
    Using an example from this question, we can check the linear model assumptions:



    log-log






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$









    • 3




      $begingroup$
      +1 for an intuitive answer to an unintuitive concept. However, the image you have included clearly violates constant error variance across the predictor.
      $endgroup$
      – Frans Rodenburg
      Mar 27 at 7:24








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The answer is right, but authorship attribution is wrong. The image shouldn't be attributed to Google Images but, at least, to the web page where it is to be found, that can be find out just by clicking in Google images.
      $endgroup$
      – Pere
      Mar 27 at 8:42










    • $begingroup$
      @Pere I cannot find the original source of the image unfortunately (at least using reverse image search)
      $endgroup$
      – qwr
      Mar 27 at 9:33










    • $begingroup$
      It seems to come originally from diagramss.us though that site is down and most of its pages are not in the Web Archive apart from its homepage
      $endgroup$
      – Henry
      Mar 28 at 9:03














    7












    7








    7





    $begingroup$

    Intuitively $log$ gives us the order of magnitude of a variable, so we can view the relationship as the orders of magnitudes of the two variables are linearly related. For example, increasing the predictor by one order of magnitude may be associated with an increase of three orders of magnitude of the response.



    When plotting using a log-log plot we hope to see a linear relationship.
    Using an example from this question, we can check the linear model assumptions:



    log-log






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Intuitively $log$ gives us the order of magnitude of a variable, so we can view the relationship as the orders of magnitudes of the two variables are linearly related. For example, increasing the predictor by one order of magnitude may be associated with an increase of three orders of magnitude of the response.



    When plotting using a log-log plot we hope to see a linear relationship.
    Using an example from this question, we can check the linear model assumptions:



    log-log







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Mar 27 at 15:21









    Anon1759

    32




    32










    answered Mar 27 at 1:05









    qwrqwr

    249113




    249113








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      +1 for an intuitive answer to an unintuitive concept. However, the image you have included clearly violates constant error variance across the predictor.
      $endgroup$
      – Frans Rodenburg
      Mar 27 at 7:24








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The answer is right, but authorship attribution is wrong. The image shouldn't be attributed to Google Images but, at least, to the web page where it is to be found, that can be find out just by clicking in Google images.
      $endgroup$
      – Pere
      Mar 27 at 8:42










    • $begingroup$
      @Pere I cannot find the original source of the image unfortunately (at least using reverse image search)
      $endgroup$
      – qwr
      Mar 27 at 9:33










    • $begingroup$
      It seems to come originally from diagramss.us though that site is down and most of its pages are not in the Web Archive apart from its homepage
      $endgroup$
      – Henry
      Mar 28 at 9:03














    • 3




      $begingroup$
      +1 for an intuitive answer to an unintuitive concept. However, the image you have included clearly violates constant error variance across the predictor.
      $endgroup$
      – Frans Rodenburg
      Mar 27 at 7:24








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The answer is right, but authorship attribution is wrong. The image shouldn't be attributed to Google Images but, at least, to the web page where it is to be found, that can be find out just by clicking in Google images.
      $endgroup$
      – Pere
      Mar 27 at 8:42










    • $begingroup$
      @Pere I cannot find the original source of the image unfortunately (at least using reverse image search)
      $endgroup$
      – qwr
      Mar 27 at 9:33










    • $begingroup$
      It seems to come originally from diagramss.us though that site is down and most of its pages are not in the Web Archive apart from its homepage
      $endgroup$
      – Henry
      Mar 28 at 9:03








    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    +1 for an intuitive answer to an unintuitive concept. However, the image you have included clearly violates constant error variance across the predictor.
    $endgroup$
    – Frans Rodenburg
    Mar 27 at 7:24






    $begingroup$
    +1 for an intuitive answer to an unintuitive concept. However, the image you have included clearly violates constant error variance across the predictor.
    $endgroup$
    – Frans Rodenburg
    Mar 27 at 7:24






    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    The answer is right, but authorship attribution is wrong. The image shouldn't be attributed to Google Images but, at least, to the web page where it is to be found, that can be find out just by clicking in Google images.
    $endgroup$
    – Pere
    Mar 27 at 8:42




    $begingroup$
    The answer is right, but authorship attribution is wrong. The image shouldn't be attributed to Google Images but, at least, to the web page where it is to be found, that can be find out just by clicking in Google images.
    $endgroup$
    – Pere
    Mar 27 at 8:42












    $begingroup$
    @Pere I cannot find the original source of the image unfortunately (at least using reverse image search)
    $endgroup$
    – qwr
    Mar 27 at 9:33




    $begingroup$
    @Pere I cannot find the original source of the image unfortunately (at least using reverse image search)
    $endgroup$
    – qwr
    Mar 27 at 9:33












    $begingroup$
    It seems to come originally from diagramss.us though that site is down and most of its pages are not in the Web Archive apart from its homepage
    $endgroup$
    – Henry
    Mar 28 at 9:03




    $begingroup$
    It seems to come originally from diagramss.us though that site is down and most of its pages are not in the Web Archive apart from its homepage
    $endgroup$
    – Henry
    Mar 28 at 9:03











    4












    $begingroup$

    Reconciling the answer by @Rscrill with actual discrete data, consider



    $$log(Y_t) = alog(X_t) + b,;;; log(Y_{t-1}) = alog(X_{t-1}) + b$$



    $$implies log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = aleft[log(X_t)-log(X_{t-1})right]$$



    But



    $$log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = logleft(frac{Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) equiv logleft(frac{Y_{t-1}+Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) = logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right)$$



    $frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}$ is the percentage change of $Y$ between periods $t-1$ and $t$, or the growth rate of $Y_t$, say $g_{Y_{t}}$. When it is smaller than $0.1$, we have that an acceptable approximation is



    $$logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) approx frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}=g_{Y_{t}}$$



    Therefore we get



    $$g_{Y_{t}}approx ag_{X_{t}}$$



    which validates in empirical studies the theoretical treatment of @Rscrill.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is probably what a mathematician would call intuitive :)
      $endgroup$
      – Richard Hardy
      Mar 28 at 10:59
















    4












    $begingroup$

    Reconciling the answer by @Rscrill with actual discrete data, consider



    $$log(Y_t) = alog(X_t) + b,;;; log(Y_{t-1}) = alog(X_{t-1}) + b$$



    $$implies log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = aleft[log(X_t)-log(X_{t-1})right]$$



    But



    $$log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = logleft(frac{Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) equiv logleft(frac{Y_{t-1}+Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) = logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right)$$



    $frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}$ is the percentage change of $Y$ between periods $t-1$ and $t$, or the growth rate of $Y_t$, say $g_{Y_{t}}$. When it is smaller than $0.1$, we have that an acceptable approximation is



    $$logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) approx frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}=g_{Y_{t}}$$



    Therefore we get



    $$g_{Y_{t}}approx ag_{X_{t}}$$



    which validates in empirical studies the theoretical treatment of @Rscrill.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is probably what a mathematician would call intuitive :)
      $endgroup$
      – Richard Hardy
      Mar 28 at 10:59














    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    Reconciling the answer by @Rscrill with actual discrete data, consider



    $$log(Y_t) = alog(X_t) + b,;;; log(Y_{t-1}) = alog(X_{t-1}) + b$$



    $$implies log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = aleft[log(X_t)-log(X_{t-1})right]$$



    But



    $$log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = logleft(frac{Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) equiv logleft(frac{Y_{t-1}+Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) = logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right)$$



    $frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}$ is the percentage change of $Y$ between periods $t-1$ and $t$, or the growth rate of $Y_t$, say $g_{Y_{t}}$. When it is smaller than $0.1$, we have that an acceptable approximation is



    $$logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) approx frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}=g_{Y_{t}}$$



    Therefore we get



    $$g_{Y_{t}}approx ag_{X_{t}}$$



    which validates in empirical studies the theoretical treatment of @Rscrill.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Reconciling the answer by @Rscrill with actual discrete data, consider



    $$log(Y_t) = alog(X_t) + b,;;; log(Y_{t-1}) = alog(X_{t-1}) + b$$



    $$implies log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = aleft[log(X_t)-log(X_{t-1})right]$$



    But



    $$log(Y_t) - log(Y_{t-1}) = logleft(frac{Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) equiv logleft(frac{Y_{t-1}+Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) = logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right)$$



    $frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}$ is the percentage change of $Y$ between periods $t-1$ and $t$, or the growth rate of $Y_t$, say $g_{Y_{t}}$. When it is smaller than $0.1$, we have that an acceptable approximation is



    $$logleft(1+frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}right) approx frac{Delta Y_t}{Y_{t-1}}=g_{Y_{t}}$$



    Therefore we get



    $$g_{Y_{t}}approx ag_{X_{t}}$$



    which validates in empirical studies the theoretical treatment of @Rscrill.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Mar 26 at 22:09









    Alecos PapadopoulosAlecos Papadopoulos

    42.8k297198




    42.8k297198








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is probably what a mathematician would call intuitive :)
      $endgroup$
      – Richard Hardy
      Mar 28 at 10:59














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      This is probably what a mathematician would call intuitive :)
      $endgroup$
      – Richard Hardy
      Mar 28 at 10:59








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    This is probably what a mathematician would call intuitive :)
    $endgroup$
    – Richard Hardy
    Mar 28 at 10:59




    $begingroup$
    This is probably what a mathematician would call intuitive :)
    $endgroup$
    – Richard Hardy
    Mar 28 at 10:59











    0












    $begingroup$

    A linear relationship between the logs is equivalent to a power law dependence:
    $$Y sim X^alpha$$
    In physics such behavior means that the system is scale free or scale invariant. As an example, if $X$ is distance or time this means that the dependence on $X$ cannot be characterized by a characteristic length or time scale (as opposed to exponential decays). As a result, such a system exhibits a long-range dependence of the $Y$ on $X$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      A linear relationship between the logs is equivalent to a power law dependence:
      $$Y sim X^alpha$$
      In physics such behavior means that the system is scale free or scale invariant. As an example, if $X$ is distance or time this means that the dependence on $X$ cannot be characterized by a characteristic length or time scale (as opposed to exponential decays). As a result, such a system exhibits a long-range dependence of the $Y$ on $X$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        A linear relationship between the logs is equivalent to a power law dependence:
        $$Y sim X^alpha$$
        In physics such behavior means that the system is scale free or scale invariant. As an example, if $X$ is distance or time this means that the dependence on $X$ cannot be characterized by a characteristic length or time scale (as opposed to exponential decays). As a result, such a system exhibits a long-range dependence of the $Y$ on $X$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        A linear relationship between the logs is equivalent to a power law dependence:
        $$Y sim X^alpha$$
        In physics such behavior means that the system is scale free or scale invariant. As an example, if $X$ is distance or time this means that the dependence on $X$ cannot be characterized by a characteristic length or time scale (as opposed to exponential decays). As a result, such a system exhibits a long-range dependence of the $Y$ on $X$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Apr 2 at 11:28

























        answered Apr 2 at 3:42









        ItamarItamar

        67749




        67749

















            protected by kjetil b halvorsen Apr 2 at 7:15



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



            Popular posts from this blog

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Alcedinidae

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]