Bivariate least squares linear regression: Towards a unified analytic formalism. I. Functional models

Concerning bivariate least squares linear regression, the classical approach pursued for functional models in earlier attempts (York, 1966, 1969) is reviewed using a new formalism in terms of deviation (matrix) traces which, for unweighted data, reduce to usual quantities leaving aside an unessential (but dimensional) multiplicative factor. Within the framework of classical error models, the dependent variable relates to the independent variable according to the usual additive model. The classes of linear models considered are regression lines in the general case of correlated errors in X and in Y for weighted data, and in the opposite limiting situations of (i) uncorrelated errors in X and in Y, and (ii) completely correlated errors in X and in Y. The special case of (C) generalized orthogonal regression is considered in detail together with well known subcases, namely: (Y) errors in X negligible (ideally null) with respect to errors in Y; (X) errors in Y negligible (ideally null) with respect to errors in X; (O) genuine orthogonal regression; (R) reduced major-axis regression. In the limit of unweighted data, the results determined for functional models are compared with their counterparts related to extreme structural models i.e. the instrumental scatter is negligible (ideally null) with respect to the intrinsic scatter (Isobe et al., 1990; Feigelson and Babu, 1992). While regression line slope and intercept estimators for functional and structural models necessarily coincide, the contrary holds for related variance estimators even if the residuals obey a Gaussian distribution, with the exception of Y models. An example of astronomical application is considered, concerning the [O/H]-[Fe/H] empirical relations deduced from five samples related to different stars and/or different methods of oxygen abundance determination. For selected samples and assigned methods, different regression models yield consistent results within the errors (∓σ) for both heteroscedastic and homoscedastic data. Conversely, samples related to different methods produce discrepant results, due to the presence of (still undetected) systematic errors, which implies no definitive statement can be made at present. A comparison is also made between different expressions of regression line slope and intercept variance estimators, where fractional discrepancies are found to be not exceeding a few percent, which grows up to about 20% in the presence of large dispersion data. An extension of the formalism to structural models is left to a forthcoming paper.