Residuals correlated positively with response variable strongly in linear regression I did the multiple linear regression on a dataset of 412 observations, with one response variable (Y) and 25 explanatory variables(X1-X25). Y and most of Xs are not normally distributed. Besides, there are some correlation between several Xs. The plot show that the residuals strongly correlated with Y positively and weakly correlated with fitted Y negatively.(Sorry.As I'm newer in this website, I am n't allowed to post images.)
To address these problems, I have tried the principle component regression, the weighted least squared regression and the ridge regression. They all didn't work. I want to know what's wrong with the regression. Why did the residuals correlate with observed Y so obvious?
 A: residuals almost always correlate with your observations as long es your regressors do not fully explain the true underlying data model. So the presence of high correlation between $y$ and residuals is evidence for the presence of noise/variation that is not captured by your explanatory variables.
This could have several reasons


*

*Your regressors are only weakly related to your target variable

*Even if they are strongly correlated, your observation might be very noisy or the amount of noise in the system is high.

*Your regression model is not well specified, i.e., non-linearity, non-gaussianity in the error terms. 

*You have too few data points to efficiently identify the right relationships.


Since you will most likely not be able to increase your data sample size as it is an outside restriction, try to normalize your regressors and target variable so that they resemble more normally distributed variables (log transforms for positive variable for instance). In this case, OLS regression models can be more efficient in identifying the true underlying relationships.
Correlation among regressors should not affect the in-sample residual correlation too much (only your parameter estimates will be skewed).
A: 1) Residuals do correlate positively with observed values in many, many cases.  Think of it this way - a very large positive error ("error" is the "true residual", to misuse the language) means that the corresponding observation is, all other things equal, likely to be very large in a positive direction.  A very large negative error means that the corresponding observation is likely to be very large in a negative direction.  If the $R^2$ of the regression is not large, then the variability of the errors will be the dominating effect on the variability of the target variable, and you will see this effect in your plots and correlations.
For example, consider the model $y_i = a + x_i + e_i$, which we'll model as $y_i = a + bx_i + e_i$, (which is correct for $b = 1$.)  Here's the result of a regression with 100 observations:
e <- rnorm(100)
x <- rnorm(100)
y <- 1 + x + e

foo <- lm(y~x)
plot(residuals(foo)~y, xlab="y", ylab="Residuals")

> summary(foo)

Call:
lm(formula = y ~ x)

Residuals:
    Min      1Q  Median      3Q     Max 
-3.3292 -0.8280 -0.0448  0.8213  2.9450 

Coefficients:
            Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)    
(Intercept)   0.8498     0.1288   6.600 2.12e-09 ***
x             0.8929     0.1316   6.787 8.81e-10 ***
---
Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 

Residual standard error: 1.286 on 98 degrees of freedom
Multiple R-squared: 0.3197, Adjusted R-squared: 0.3128 
F-statistic: 46.06 on 1 and 98 DF,  p-value: 8.813e-10 


Note that we achieved a fairly respectable (in some fields) $R^2$ of 0.32.  
We can obscure this effect with a different model:
y <- 1 + 5*x + e

foo <- lm(y~x)
plot(residuals(foo)~y, xlab="y", ylab="Residuals")

which has an $R^2$ of 0.93 and the following residual plot:

Here the correlation between $y$ and the residuals is about 0.25, but it's a lot less obvious on the plot.  
2) Residuals have correlation zero with fitted values in a linear regression, by construction.  Is your statement "... weakly correlated with fitted Y negatively" based solely upon looking at the plot, or did you actually calculate the correlation?  If the former, appearances can be deceiving... if the latter, something is wrong; possibly you aren't looking at what you think you're looking at.
