We all know that correlations range from - 1 to +1. What about correlations between random variables taking only on positive values, possibly from a Poisson, Exponential or Gamma joint distribution? You would think that that these multivariate random variables have a hard time having a very negative correlation. Here we focus on a specific example that has practical applications.
Let's assume that we are dealing with a bivariate distribution (X, Y), with the two marginals X and Y having an exponential distribution. What is the most negative correlation that we could have between X and Y? The answer is not -1, indeed it's about -0.645, and the exact value is 1 - (Pi^2) /6. Read this article for a proof, and for more general results. In particular, if you want to generate an even more negative correlation, try with Gamma distributions.
Application
This model has been used for weather predictions: the variables X and Y being respectively the storm cells duration and intensity, typically modeled as independent variables, while actually, the more intense the precipitations, the shorter the duration (thus a negative correlation). So this problem helps develop a more accurate weather prediction system. You can read the detailed paper here.
Related articles:
DSC Resources
Additional Reading
Follow us on Twitter: @DataScienceCtrl | @AnalyticBridge
Tags:
Hi Vincent,
Can you please clarify your very first statement? I do not really know that "correlations range from -1 to +1". I know that it is true for correlations measured by Pearson's correlation coefficient. I also know that Pearson's correlation coefficient only measures linear relations between variables and this very strong practical limitation results in endless attempts to create/introduce other correlation measures but neither is nearly as popular - I believe mostly due to much less straightforward interpretation.
Many thanks,
Michael
Hi Michael,
Yes, I was referring to the classic coefficient of correlation that you study in high school. I agree, it has many drawbacks, and I am myself an advocate of alternative measures of correlation, see for instance this article.
Best,
Vincent
Thank you Vincent, it is a useful clarification. Unfortunately, quite a few people tend to use a tool they better know rather than that appropriate for a particular situation. Pearson's r will return 0 for a perfectly functional relation y=sin(x) but it does not mean that r is not a good tool :)
Kind regards,
Michael
© 2019 Data Science Central ® Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
Most Popular Content on DSC
To not miss this type of content in the future, subscribe to our newsletter.
Technical
Non Technical
Articles from top bloggers
Other popular resources
Archives: 2008-2014 | 2015-2016 | 2017-2019 | Book 1 | Book 2 | More
Most popular articles