Talk:Rank correlation

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Mathematics Mid‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

The content of Ordinal association was merged into Rank correlation on 12 June 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

I don't understand what this is all about. Thanks. 205.228.73.12 11:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Are 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)Reply

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)Reply

The reference Kendall (1944) in the beginning of section Rank_correlation#General_correlation_coefficient is unavailable. Sieste (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It would be much clearer, here and below, if the notation specified that when a sum iterates over ${\displaystyle i}$ and ${\displaystyle j}$, we exclude the elements where ${\displaystyle i=j}$. Perhaps

${\displaystyle \sum _{i,j=1;i\neq j}^{n}{a_{ij}b_{ij}}}$

(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.)

Eac2222 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I believe an expert should look at this. The proof may be missing information, or incorrect.

If we have ${\displaystyle a_{ij}=\operatorname {sgn}(r_{j}-r_{i})}$, then don't we also need to define ${\displaystyle s_{i}}$ as the rank of the ${\displaystyle i}$th member according to the ${\displaystyle y}$-quality, and define ${\displaystyle b_{ij}=\operatorname {sgn}(s_{j}-s_{i})}$?

(I haven't addressed this, though I have made a few smaller changes for clarity.)

Eac2222 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Group 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)Reply