Talk:Rank correlation
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Ordinal association page were merged into Rank correlation on 12 June 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Example please
editI don't understand what this is all about. Thanks. 205.228.73.12 11:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that a lack of an example makes the content difficult to understand. I have added a new section on a rank correlation measure known as the rank-biserial correlation. I also worked through an example, so perhaps this will be easier to understand than the earlier sections. --Friend of facts2 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
When?
editAre there situations where Spearman's ρ is more suitabke than Kendall's τ, or vice-versa? How can we choose which one to use? I have no clue about it, but it would be useful to know that. Calimo (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. It is useless to list two options if no information is supplied allowing to somehow distinguish them at a glance without clicking individually each one and see for each one an explanation ignoring the other. 212.198.146.203 (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Kendall (1944) reference
editThe reference Kendall (1944) in the beginning of section Rank_correlation#General_correlation_coefficient is unavailable. Sieste (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
General Correlation Coefficient, notation
editIt would be much clearer, here and below, if the notation specified that when a sum iterates over and , we exclude the elements where . Perhaps
(although it would be nicer if the lower limits were stacked on two lines).
(I haven't addressed this, though I have made a few smaller changes for clarity.)
Proof in the case of Kendall's τ
editI believe an expert should look at this. The proof may be missing information, or incorrect.
If we have , then don't we also need to define as the rank of the th member according to the -quality, and define ?
(I haven't addressed this, though I have made a few smaller changes for clarity.)
Diaconis source
editGroup Representations in Probability and Statistics by Diaconis was much later than his 1977 paper with Graham Spearman's Footrule as a measure of disarray. I think it should be cited in the section that mentions viewing permutations as a metric space. BlockusYellow (talk) 09:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)