I've modeled two regression models the first is a multiple linear regression (OLS) $$Y=\beta_0+\beta_1X_1+\cdots+\beta_nX_n+e$$ and I can get its $R^2$. The second model is a spatial autoregressive model (SAR) $$Y=\rho W + \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_1 + \cdots+\beta_nX_n+e$$ where $W$ is the contiguity matrix and $\rho$ is an unknown parameter. This model is estimated by the method of maximum likelihood but I cannot calculate its $R^2$ and rather I have to use the $R^2$ Nalgerkerke. I've found this "There is no direct equivalent to the OLS R-squared, these models are fitted by maximum likelihood." from http://r-sig-geo.2731867.n2.nabble.com/How-to-calculate-squared-R-of-spatial-autoregressive-models-td5762576.html but I'd like to know why I cannot calculate $R^2$ for this model if the formula is just $$R^2=1-\frac{\sum(y_i-\hat{y}_i)^2}{\sum(y_i-\overline{y})^2}$$

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "There is no direct equivalent" does not mean "you cannot calculate it." The former needs to be interpreted as a warning about the applicability and interpretation of $R^2.$ $\endgroup$
    – whuber
    Commented Jun 28, 2019 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ Alright but why? I mean I can calculate it for both but is the interpretation different or no equivalent? Do you know some paper or book where I could read more about this? Thanks for your answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 28, 2019 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ If you have a likelihood, then you can compute deviance. For Gaussian likelihood, deviance is the r-squared. Compare both formulas to understand if and why they differ. $\endgroup$
    – Firebug
    Commented Aug 15, 2021 at 12:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fit the model and find its predictions. What is $ \sum_i\Big[ (y_i - \hat{y_i})(\hat{y_i} - \bar{y}) \Big] $? If that sum is not zero (or some tiny number that close enough to zero for arithmetic on a computer), then $R^2$ loses its usual "proportion of variance explained" interpretation. $\endgroup$
    – Dave
    Commented Dec 16, 2021 at 21:19

1 Answer 1


First, the definition of $R^2$ originates from the decomposition formula, i.e. $$S_T=S_R+S_e,$$ where $S_T=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n(y_i-\bar y)^2$, $S_R=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n(\hat y_i-\bar y)^2$, $S_e=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n(y_i-\hat y_i)^2$. Assume that the matrix form of the multiple linear regression is $$Y_{n\times 1}=X_{n\times (p+1)}\beta_{(p+1)\times 1}+\varepsilon_{n\times 1},$$ the proof of the above decomposition formula uses the normal equations of the OLS estimator $\hat\beta_{OLS}$ $$X^T(Y-X\hat\beta_{OLS})=0_{(p+1)\times 1}.$$ Second, the MLE estimator $\hat\beta_{MLE}$ of $\beta$ doesn't satisfy the normal equations unless $\varepsilon_{n\times 1}$ follows $N(0_{n\times 1},I_n)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Do you know where I can check more about this? Thank you for your answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 1, 2019 at 18:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.