Test H₀:β₁=0 using T=(β₁−0)/SE(β₁) with n−2 df. Confidence interval for β₁: β₁±t_{n-2,α/2}·SE(β₁). F-test for overall model. Prediction intervals widen with distance from X̄ and with increased residual variation.
From simple linear regression you know how to compute β̂₁ — the OLS estimate of the slope — from a sample of n observations. But β̂₁ is a statistic, not a parameter. Every new sample would give a slightly different slope. The central insight of regression inference is that β̂₁ has its own sampling distribution: under standard assumptions (linearity, constant variance, uncorrelated errors), β̂₁ is normally distributed with mean equal to the true population slope β₁ and standard error SE(β̂₁) = s / √(Σ(xᵢ − x̄)²), where s is the residual standard error. We cannot observe β₁ directly, but we can reason probabilistically about where it lies.
The most common question is whether the predictor matters at all — does X have a linear relationship with Y in the population? This is formalized as H₀: β₁ = 0. The t-statistic T = β̂₁ / SE(β̂₁) measures how many standard errors the estimate is from zero. Under H₀, T follows a t-distribution with n − 2 degrees of freedom (we lose two for estimating β₀ and β₁). A large |T| means the slope is far from zero relative to its sampling uncertainty, giving evidence against H₀. The p-value is the probability of observing a t-statistic at least as extreme, assuming H₀ is true. If p < α, we reject H₀ and conclude that X is a statistically significant linear predictor of Y.
A confidence interval for β₁ — β̂₁ ± t_{n−2, α/2} · SE(β̂₁) — inverts the same logic. Rather than asking whether a specific hypothesized value is plausible, the interval reports all values that would not be rejected at level α. An interval that excludes zero is equivalent to rejecting H₀: β₁ = 0 at that level. The F-test for the overall model generalizes to multiple predictors: it tests whether all slopes are simultaneously zero. In simple regression, the F-statistic equals T², so both tests are equivalent and give identical p-values.
Prediction intervals address a different question: where will a *new individual observation* fall, given a particular X value? Unlike a confidence interval for the mean response (which only captures uncertainty about the population mean at X = x*), a prediction interval must also account for residual variation — the irreducible scatter of individual points around the true line. As a result, prediction intervals are always wider than confidence intervals for the mean. Both intervals are narrowest at X = X̄ and widen as X moves away from the mean, because the OLS line is pinned by the data centroid — extrapolation increases uncertainty. The more residual variation in the data (larger s), the wider both intervals become, reflecting genuine uncertainty about the underlying relationship.
No topics depend on this one yet.