# Linear regression: *Why* can you partition sums of squares?

This post refers to a bivariate linear regression model, $Y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1x_i$ . I have always taken the partitioning of total sum of squares (SSTO) into sum of squares for error (SSE) and sum of squares for the model (SSR) on faith, but once I started really thinking about it, I don't understand why it works...

The part I do understand:

$y_i$: An observed value of y

$\bar{y}$: The mean of all observed $y_i$s

$\hat{y}_i$: The fitted/predicted value of y for a given observation's x

$y_i - \hat{y}_i$: Residual/error (if squared and added up for all observations this is SSE)

$\hat{y}_i - \bar{y}$: How much the model fitted value differs from the mean (if squared and added up for all observations this is SSR)

$y_i - \bar{y}$: How much an observed value differs from the mean (if suared and added up for all observations, this is SSTO).

I can understand why, for a single observation, without squaring anything, $(y_i - \bar{y}) = (\hat{y}_i - \bar{y}) + (y_i - \hat{y}_i)$. And I can understand why, if you want to add things up over all observations, you have to square them or they'll add up to 0.

The part I don't understand is why $(y_i - \bar{y})^2 = (\hat{y}_i - \bar{y})^2 + (y_i - \hat{y}_i)^2$ (eg. SSTO = SSR + SSE). It seems to be that if you have a situation where $A = B + C$, then $A^2 = B^2 + 2BC + C^2$, not $A^2 = B^2 + C^2$. Why isn't that the case here?

• You left out the summation in your last paragraph. SST = SSR + SSE is a sum over $i$, but your equality you wrote immediately before it is not actually true without the summation sign there. – Glen_b Jan 26 '17 at 15:08
• In your last paragraph, you want (i.e. SSTO = SSR + SSE) not (e.g. SSTO = SSR + SSE). "e.g." is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase "exempli gratia," or "for example" in English. "i.e." is an abbreviation for "id est" and can be read in English as "that is." – Matthew Gunn Jan 27 '17 at 21:58

It seems to be that if you have a situation where $A = B + C$, then $A^2 = B^2 + 2BC + C^2$, not $A^2 = B^2 + C^2$. Why isn't that the case here?

Conceptually, the idea is that $BC = 0$ because $B$ and $C$ are orthogonal (i.e. are perpendicular).

In the context of linear regression here, the residuals $\epsilon_i = y_i - \hat{y}_i$ are orthogonal to the demeaned forecast $\hat{y}_i - \bar{y}$. The forecast from linear regression creates an orthogonal decomposition of $\mathbf{y}$ in a similar sense as $(3,4) = (3,0) + (0,4)$ is an orthogonal decomposition.

### Linear Algebra version:

Let:

$$\mathbf{z} = \begin{bmatrix} y_1 - \bar{y} \\ y_2 - \bar{y}\\ \ldots \\ y_n - \bar{y} \end{bmatrix} \quad \quad \mathbf{\hat{z}} = \begin{bmatrix} \hat{y}_1 - \bar{y} \\ \hat{y}_2 - \bar{y} \\ \ldots \\ \hat{y}_n - \bar{y} \end{bmatrix} \quad \quad \boldsymbol{\epsilon} = \begin{bmatrix} y_1 - \hat{y}_1 \\ y_2 - \hat{y}_2 \\ \ldots \\ y_n - \hat{y}_n \end{bmatrix} = \mathbf{z} - \hat{\mathbf{z}}$$

Linear regression (with a constant included) decomposes $\mathbf{z}$ into the sum of two vectors: a forecast $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and a residual $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$

$$\mathbf{z} = \hat{\mathbf{z}} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}$$

Let $\langle .,. \rangle$ denote the dot product. (More generally, $\langle X,Y \rangle$ can be the inner product $E[XY]$.)

\begin{align*} \langle \mathbf{z} , \mathbf{z} \rangle &= \langle \hat{\mathbf{z}} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}, \hat{\mathbf{z}} + \boldsymbol{\epsilon} \rangle \\ &= \langle \hat{\mathbf{z}}, \hat{\mathbf{z}} \rangle + 2 \langle \hat{\mathbf{z}},\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol{\epsilon},\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \rangle \\ &= \langle \hat{\mathbf{z}}, \hat{\mathbf{z}} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol{\epsilon},\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \rangle \end{align*}

Where the last line follows from the fact that $\langle \hat{\mathbf{z}},\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \rangle = 0$ (i.e. that $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon} = \mathbf{z}- \hat{\mathbf{z}}$ are orthogonal). You can prove $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ are orthogonal based upon how the ordinary least squares regression constructs $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$.

$\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ is the linear projection of $\mathbf{z}$ onto the subspace defined by the linear span of the regressors $\mathbf{x}_1$, $\mathbf{x}_2$, etc.... The residual $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ is orthogonal to that entire subspace hence $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$ (which lies in the span of $\mathbf{x}_1$, $\mathbf{x}_2$, etc...) is orthogonal to $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$.

Note that as I defined $\langle .,.\rangle$ as the dot product, $\langle \mathbf{z} , \mathbf{z} \rangle = \langle \hat{\mathbf{z}}, \hat{\mathbf{z}} \rangle + \langle \boldsymbol{\epsilon},\boldsymbol{\epsilon} \rangle$ is simply another way of writing $\sum_i (y_i - \bar{y})^2 = \sum_i (\hat{y}_i - \bar{y})^2 + \sum_i (y_i - \hat{y}_i)^2$ (i.e. SSTO = SSR + SSE)

The whole point is showing that certain vectors are orthogonal and then use Pythagorean theorem.

Let us consider multivariate linear regression $Y = X\beta + \epsilon$. We know that the OLS estimator is $\hat{\beta} = (X^tX)^{-1}X^tY$. Now consider the estimate

$\hat{Y} = X\hat{\beta} = X(X^tX)^{-1}X^tY = HY$ (H matrix is also called the "hat" matrix)

where $H$ is an orthogonal projection matrix of Y onto $S(X)$. Now we have

$Y - \hat{Y} = Y - HY = (I - H)Y$

where $(I-H)$ is a projection matrix onto orthogonal complement of $S(X)$ which is $S^{\bot}(X)$. Thus we know that $Y-\hat{Y}$ and $\hat{Y}$ are orthogonal.

Now consider a submodel $Y = X_0\beta_0 + \epsilon$

where $X = [X_0 | X_1 ]$ and similarily we have the OLS estimator and estimate $\hat{\beta_0}$ and $\hat{Y_0}$ with projection matrix $H_0$ onto $S(X_0)$. Similarily we have that $Y - \hat{Y_0}$ and $\hat{Y_0}$ are orthogonal. And now

$\hat{Y} - \hat{Y_0} = HY - H_0Y = HY - H_0HY = (I - H_0)HY$

where again $(I-H_0)$ is an orthogonal projection matrix on complement of $S(X_0)$ which is $S^{\bot}(X_0)$. Thus we have orthogonality of $\hat{Y} - \hat{Y_0}$ and $\hat{Y_0}$. So in the end we have

$||Y - \hat{Y}||^2 = ||Y||^2 - ||\hat{Y}||^2 = ||Y - \hat{Y_0}||^2 + ||\hat{Y_0}||^2 - ||\hat{Y} - \hat{Y_0}||^2 - ||\hat{Y_0}||^2$

and finally $||Y - \hat{Y_0}||^2 = ||Y - \hat{Y}||^2 + ||\hat{Y} - \hat{Y_0}||^2$

Lastly, the mean $\bar{Y}$ is simply the $\hat{Y_0}$ when considering the null model $Y = \beta_0 + e$.

• Thank you for your answer! What is S() (as in S(X) in your post)? – bluemouse Jan 27 '17 at 18:21
• $S(X)$ is a subspace generated by the columns of matrix $X$ – Łukasz Grad Jan 27 '17 at 19:26