Talk:Correlogram

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Mpitt in topic Lag plot

What is the assumption for the statistical test given in the article? Memming 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merge from Autocorrelation plot edit

Yes, obviously. Editor who created the new page should merge the content ASAP. I'll make it into a redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Preliminary merge complete. Still need to consolidate some of the notation. Btyner (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Correlogram is not Corrgram... edit

Hello there,

I've recently removed this link:

From the list of external links. The reason is that the wikipedia article is talking about " a correlogram, also known as an autocorrelation plot". Where as the link is talking about corrgrams (even that the author of the page calls is "correlograms"). Corrgrams, as are explained here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.19.1268&rep=rep1&type=pdf Give an exploratory displays for correlation matrices. These are different entities then correlograms...

BTW, the R implementation of correlograms is available through the ?acf() function, please see here: http://stat.ethz.ch/R-manual/R-patched/library/stats/html/acf.html

Best, Talgalili (talk) 05:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Whatever you call it, a picture of correlation statistics is a correlogram. The article just has too narrow a definition right now. This source can help us widen the scope a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lag plot edit

To correct: the "lag plot" in the "Related Techniques" section, redirects back to the same article (i.e. the Correlogram). Is should be removed and if the "lag plot" is the same as Correlogram it should be mentioned in the text.Ehsan Shahamatnia (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lag plot is different from correlogram. I have no idea why the former is a redirect to the latter. The link shouldn't be removed from this page, the right solution is to make a page for the lag plot. --Mpitt (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply