It is often stated that the square of the sample correlation $r^2$ is equivalent to the $R^2$ coefficient of determination for simple linear regression. I have been unable to demonstrate this myself and would appreciate a full proof of this fact.


3 Answers 3


There seems to be some variation in notation: in a simple linear regression, I've usually seen the phrase "sample correlation coefficient" with symbol $r$ as a reference to the correlation between observed $x$ and $y$ values. This is the notation I have adopted for this answer. I have also seen the same phrase and symbol used to refer to the correlation between observed $y$ and fitted $\hat y$; in my answer I have referred to this as the "multiple correlation coefficient" and used the symbol $R$. This answer addresses why the coefficient of determination is both the square of $r$ and also the square of $R$, so it shouldn't matter which usage was intended.

The $r^2$ result follows in one line of algebra once some straightforward facts about correlation and the meaning of $R$ are established, so you may prefer to skip down to the boxed equation. I assume we don't have to prove basic properties of covariance and variance, in particular:

$$\text{Cov}(aX+b, Y) = a\text{Cov}(X,Y)$$ $$\text{Var}(aX+b) = a^2\text{Var}(X)$$

Note that the latter can be derived from the former, once we know that covariance is symmetric and that $\text{Var}(X)= \text{Cov}(X,X)$. From here we derive another basic fact, about correlation. For $a \neq 0$, and so long as $X$ and $Y$ have non-zero variances,

$$\begin{align} \text{Cor}(aX+b, Y) &= \frac{\text{Cov}(aX+b, Y)}{\sqrt{\text{Var}(aX+b) \text{Var} (Y)}} \\ &= \frac{a}{\sqrt{a^2}} \times \frac{\text{Cov}(X, Y)}{\sqrt{\text{Var}(X) \text{Var} (Y)}} \\ \text{Cor}(aX+b, Y) &= \text{sgn}(a) \, \text{Cor}(X,Y) \end{align} $$

Here $\text{sgn}(a)$ is the signum or sign function: its value is $\text{sgn}(a) = +1$ if $a>0$ and $\text{sgn}(a) = -1$ if $a<0$. It's also true that $\text{sgn}(a) = 0$ if $a=0$, but that case doesn't concern us: $aX+b$ would be a constant, so $\text{Var}(aX+b) = 0$ in the denominator and we can't calculate the correlation. Symmetry arguments let us generalise this result, for $a, \, c \neq 0$:

$$\text{Cor}(aX+b, \, cY+d) = \text{sgn}(a) \, \text{sgn}(c) \, \text{Cor}(X,Y)$$

We won't need this more general formula to answer the current question, but I include it to emphasise the geometry of the situation: it simply states that correlation is unchanged when either variable is scaled or translated, but reverses in sign when a variable is reflected.

We need one more fact: for a linear model including a constant term, the coefficient of determination $R^2$ is the square of the multiple correlation coefficient $R$, which is the correlation between the observed responses $Y$ and the model's fitted values $\hat Y$. This applies for both multiple and simple regressions, but let us restrict our attention to the simple linear model $\hat Y = \hat \beta_0 + \hat \beta_1 X$. The result follows from the observation that $\hat Y$ is a scaled, possibly reflected, and translated version of $X$:

$$\boxed{R = \text{Cor}(\hat Y, Y) = \text{Cor}(\hat \beta_0 + \hat \beta_1 X, \, Y) = \text{sgn}(\hat \beta_1) \, \text{Cor}(X, Y) = \text{sgn}(\hat \beta_1) \, r}$$

So $R = \pm r$ where the sign matches the sign of the estimated slope, which guarantees $R$ not to be negative. Clearly $R^2 = r^2$.

The preceding argument was made simpler by not having to consider sums of squares. To achieve this, I skipped over the details of the relationship between $R^2$, which we normally think of in terms of sums of squares, and $R$, for which we think about correlations of fitted and observed responses. The symbols make the relationship $R^2 = (R)^2$ seem tautological but this is not the case, and the relationship breaks down if there is no intercept term in the model! I'll give a brief sketch of a geometric argument about the relationship between $R$ and $R^2$ taken from a different question: the diagram is drawn in $n$-dimensional subject space, so each axis (not shown) represents a single unit of observation, and variables are shown as vectors. The columns of the design matrix $\mathbf{X}$ are the vector $\mathbf{1_n}$ (for the constant term) and the vector of observations of the explanatory variable, so the column space is a two-dimensional flat.

Vectors in subject space of multiple regression

The fitted $\mathbf{\hat{Y}}$ is the orthogonal projection of the observed $\mathbf{Y}$ onto the column space of $\mathbf{X}$. This means the vector of residuals $\mathbf{e} = \mathbf{y} - \mathbf{\hat{y}}$ is perpendicular to the flat, and hence to $\mathbf{1_n}$. The dot product is $0 = \mathbf{1_n} \cdot \mathbf{e} = \sum_{i=1}^n e_i$. As the residuals sum to zero and $Y_i = \hat{Y_i} + e_i$, then $\sum_{i=1}^n Y_i = \sum_{i=1}^n \hat{Y_i}$ so that both fitted and observed responses have mean $\bar{Y}$. The dashed lines in the diagram, $\mathbf{Y} - \bar{Y}\mathbf{1_n}$ and $\mathbf{\hat{Y}} - \bar{Y}\mathbf{1_n}$, are therefore the centered vectors for the observed and fitted responses, and the cosine of the angle $\theta$ between them is their correlation $R$.

The triangle these vectors form with the vector of residuals is right-angled since $\mathbf{\hat{Y}} - \bar{Y}\mathbf{1_n}$ lies in the flat but $\mathbf{e}$ is orthogonal to it. Applying Pythagoras:

$$\|\mathbf{Y} - \bar{Y}\mathbf{1_n}\|^2 = \|\mathbf{Y} - \mathbf{\hat{Y}}\|^2 + \|\mathbf{\hat{Y}} - \bar{Y}\mathbf{1_n}\|^2 $$

This is just the decomposition of the sums of squares, $SS_{\text{total}} = SS_{\text{residual}} + SS_{\text{regression}}$. The conventional formula for the coefficient of determination is $1 - \frac{SS_{\text{residual}}}{SS_{\text{total}}}$ which in this triangle is $1 - \sin^2 \theta = \cos^2 \theta$ so is indeed the square of $R$. You may be more familiar with the formula $R^2 = \frac{SS_{\text{regression}}}{SS_{\text{total}}}$, which immediately gives $\cos^2 \theta$, but note that $1 - \frac{SS_{\text{residual}}}{SS_{\text{total}}}$ is more general, and will (as we've just seen) reduce to $\frac{SS_{\text{regression}}}{SS_{\text{total}}}$ if a constant term is included in the model.

  • $\begingroup$ +1 thanks for the efforts of making nice math and graph!! $\endgroup$
    – Haitao Du
    Commented May 5, 2017 at 13:41

The $R^2$ is defined as $$R^2=\frac{\hat{V}(\hat{y}_i)}{\hat{V}(y_i)} =\frac{1/(N-1)\sum_{i=1}^N(\hat{y}_i-\bar{y})^2}{1/(N-1)\sum_{i=1}^N(y_i-\bar{y})^2}=\frac{ESS}{TSS} $$ The squared sample correlation coefficient: $$r^2(y_i,\hat{y}_i)=\frac{\left(\sum_{i=1}^N(y_i-\bar{y})(\hat{y}_i-\bar{y})\right)^2}{\left(\sum_{i=1}^N(y_i-\bar{y})^2\right)\left(\sum_{i=1}^N(\hat y_i-\bar{y})^2\right)} $$ is equivalent, as it is easily verified using: $$\hat V(y_i)=\hat V(\hat y_i)+\hat V(e_i) $$ (see Verbeek, §2.4)

  • $\begingroup$ Could you add some more details. I've been trying to prove this but with no sucess... $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 12, 2014 at 21:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Anoldmaninthesea. I know I am a bit late but my answer below contains a lot more details :) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 30, 2023 at 23:54

We consider here the problem of multiple linear regression, that is we are given $n\in\mathbb N$ data points (i.e. vectors in $\mathbb R^{p+1}$ for some $p\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$) $$\mathbf x_1 = \begin{pmatrix} x_{1,0}, x_{1,1},\dots, x_{1,p}\end{pmatrix},\ \mathbf x_2 = \begin{pmatrix} x_{2,0}, x_{2,1},\dots, x_{2,p}\end{pmatrix},\dots,\mathbf x_n = \begin{pmatrix} x_{n,0}, x_{n,1},\dots, x_{n,p}\end{pmatrix}.$$ We are also given the corresponding labels $$y_1,\dots,y_n\in\mathbb R.$$

Of course, in practice, $n$ denotes the number of data points we have available while $p$ denotes the number of features we use for prediction.

I will write $$\mathbf y = \begin{pmatrix}y_1\\ \vdots\\y_n\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbb R^n$$ as well as $$\mathbf X = \begin{pmatrix}\mathbf x_1\\ \vdots\\ \mathbf x_n\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbb R^{n\times (p+1)}.$$

Our goal is to predict the labels based on the data points using linear regression while minimizing the Gaussian squared loss [Footnote 1], that is, we are looking for a $\beta\in\mathbb R^{p+1}$ which minimizes

$$L(\mathbf X, \mathbf y, \beta)=\lVert\mathbf y-\mathbf X\beta\rVert^2=\sum_{k=1}^n \left(y_k - \langle\mathbf x_k, \beta\rangle\right)^2.$$

A direct computation of the gradient of $L$ gives

$$\nabla_\beta L(\mathbf X, \mathbf y, \beta) = 2(\mathbf X^\top\mathbf X\beta - \mathbf X^\top\mathbf y).$$

The Hessian of $L$ satisfies

$$\text{Hess}_\beta L(\mathbf X, \mathbf y, \beta) = \mathbf X^\top\mathbf X.$$

In particular, since $\mathbf X^\top\mathbf X$ is positive semi-definite, $\beta\mapsto L(\mathbf X,\mathbf y, \beta)$ is convex for all fixed $\mathbf X, \mathbf y$, and thus any solution $\beta$ of $\nabla_\beta L(\mathbf X,\mathbf y,\beta)=0$ is a global minimizer of $\beta\mapsto L(\mathbf X,\mathbf y, \beta)$.

$\nabla_\beta L(\mathbf X,\mathbf y,\beta)=0$ is equivalent to $$\mathbf X^\top\mathbf X\beta - \mathbf X^\top\mathbf y=0,$$ so that, assuming $\mathbf X^\top\mathbf X$ is invertible, as we will do from now on, (this is the case if the rank of $\mathbf X$ is equal to $\min(n,p)$), we have that $$\beta = (\mathbf X^\top\mathbf X)^{-1}\mathbf X^\top\mathbf y$$ is a minimizer of our quadratic loss.

Define now

$$\mathbf H = \mathbf X(\mathbf X^\top\mathbf X)^{-1}\mathbf X^\top\in\mathbb R^{n\times n}.$$

Then the predictions of our linear model are $$\hat{\mathbf y}\overset{\text{Def.}}=\mathbf H\mathbf y.$$

We define the "coefficient of determination" [Footnote 2] $R^2$ to be equal to $$ R^2 \overset{\text{Def.}}= \frac{\sum_{k=1}^n (\hat y_k-\bar y)^2}{\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar y)^2}, $$ where $\hat y_k$ denotes the $k$-th coordinate of $\hat{\mathbf y}$ and $\bar y\overset{\text{Def.}}=\frac{y_1+\dots y_n}{n}$. In fact, this Definition is common also if the predictions $\hat{\mathbf y}$ were obtained by methods different than linear regression. (Note that if $\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar y)^2=0$, then $R^2$ is undefined.)

The goal of this first section will be establish basic relationships between $\hat{\mathbf y}$ and $\mathbf y$. As a Corollary of these relationships we will obtain that if $R^2$ is well-defined, then $$R^2 = 1-\frac{\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\hat y_k)^2}{\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar y_k)^2}.$$

Lemma 1a. We have $\mathbf H^\top = \mathbf H$ and $\mathbf H^2 = \mathbf H$.

Proof. Straightforward calculation. $\square$

Lemma 1b. Let $\text{Id}_n$ denote the identity matrix in $\mathbb R^n$, then $(\text{Id}_n-\mathbf H)^2 = \text{Id}_n-\mathbf H$.

Proof. Follows directly from $\mathbf H^2 = \mathbf H$. $\square$

Definition. The linear regression is done with intercept if we impose that $x_{1,0}=\dots=x_{n,0}=1$. In other words, our prediction $\hat{\mathbf y}$ is an affine function of $(x_{\cdot, 1},\dots, x_{\cdot, p})$ and not necessarily a linear one (we are free to choose the intercept, i.e. the value of $\hat y$ when $(x_{\cdot, 1},\dots, x_{\cdot, p})=0$).

Lemma 2. If the linear regression is done with intercept, then $(1,\dots, 1)^\top\in\mathbb R^n$ is an eigenvector of $\mathbf H$ with eigenvalue $1$.

Proof. Since $\mathbf H\mathbf X=\mathbf X$, every column of $\mathbf X$ is an eigenvector of $\mathbf H$ with eigenvalue $1$. By Definition, the first column of $\mathbf X$ equals $(1,\dots, 1)^\top$ if fitting is done with intercept. $\square$

Remark. Lemma 2 is wrong in general if fitting is done without intercept.

Disclaimer. We assume from now on that fitting is done with intercept.

Proposition 1. Let $\mathbf 1_n$ denote the matrix in $\mathbb R^{n\times n}$ with every entry equal to $1$. Then $\left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)^2 = \mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n$.

Proof. We have $$\left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)^2 = \mathbf H^2 - \frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\mathbf H - \frac 1n\mathbf H\mathbf 1_n +\frac 1{n^2}\mathbf 1_n^2.$$ We have $\mathbf 1_n^2 = n \mathbf 1_n$. Since $\mathbf H=\mathbf H^\top$, by Lemma 2, $\mathbf 1_n\mathbf H = \mathbf 1_n = \mathbf H\mathbf 1_n$. This ends the proof. $\square$

Proposition 2. We have $$\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar y)^2 = \sum_{k=1}^n (\hat y_k-\bar y)^2+\sum_{k=1}^n(y_k-\hat y_k)^2.$$

Proof. Note that $$\sum_{k=1}^n (\hat y_k-\bar y)^2 = \left\lVert \hat{\mathbf y}-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n \mathbf y\right\rVert^2 = \left\langle\left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y, \left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rangle.$$

Using $\mathbf H^\top=\mathbf H$ and Proposition 2, we get $$\left\langle\left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y, \left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rangle = \left\langle\mathbf y, \left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rangle.$$

Using an analogous argument together with Lemma 1a, we get $$\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\hat y_k)^2=\left\lVert(\operatorname{Id}_n-\mathbf H)\mathbf y\right\rVert^2 = \left\langle\mathbf y, (\operatorname{Id}_n-\mathbf H)\mathbf y\right\rangle.$$

In sum,

$$\sum_{k=1}^n (\hat y_k-\bar y)^2 + \sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\hat y_k)^2 = \left\langle \mathbf y, \left(\operatorname{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rangle.$$

Since $\left(\operatorname{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)$ is symmetrical and $$\left(\operatorname{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)^2 =\operatorname{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n,$$ we thus have $$\sum_{k=1}^n (\hat y_k-\bar y)^2 + \sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\hat y_k)^2 = \left\lVert \left(\operatorname{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rVert^2 = \sum_{k=1}^n (y_k - \bar y)^2,$$ thus achieving a proof. $\square$

Corollary. If $R^2$ is well-defined, then $$R^2 = 1-\frac{\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\hat y_k)^2}{\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar y_k)^2}.$$

We will now prove the equality of $R^2$ and the correlation between $\mathbf y$ and $\hat{\mathbf y}$.

Notation. Let $$\text{Cov}(\mathbf y,\hat{\mathbf y})\overset{\text{Def.}}=\frac 1n\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar y)(\hat y_k-\bar{\hat y}),$$ as well as $$V(\mathbf y) \overset{\text{Def.}}=\frac 1n\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar y)^2$$ and $$V(\hat{\mathbf y}) \overset{\text{Def.}}=\frac 1n\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar{\hat y})^2.$$

Theorem. If $V(\hat{\mathbf y})\neq 0$, then $V(\mathbf y)\neq 0$, $R^2$ is well-defined and $$R^2 = \left(\frac{\text{Cov}(\mathbf y,\hat{\mathbf y})}{\sqrt{V(\mathbf y)V(\hat{\mathbf y})}}\right)^2.$$

Proof. We first note the following identities that can easily be verified using the machinery provided above:

  • $V(\mathbf y) = \frac 1n\left\lVert\left(\text{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rVert^2 = \frac 1n\left\langle\mathbf y,\left(\text{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rangle $,
  • $V(\hat{\mathbf y}) = \frac 1n\left\lVert\left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rVert^2= \frac 1n\left\langle\mathbf y,\left(\mathbf H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rangle$,
  • $\text{Cov}(\mathbf y,\hat{\mathbf y}) = \frac 1n\left\langle \left(\operatorname{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y,\left(H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rangle=\frac 1n\left\langle\mathbf y,\left(H-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\right\rangle=V(\hat{\mathbf y})$.

Assume from now on that $V(\hat{\mathbf y})\neq 0$. This is equivalent to $\mathbf H \left(\operatorname{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\neq 0$, which implies in particular that $\left(\operatorname{Id}_n-\frac 1n\mathbf 1_n\right)\mathbf y\neq 0$ and thus $V(\mathbf y)\neq 0$.

From the above identities, we also have

$$\frac{\text{Cov}(\mathbf y,\hat{\mathbf y})}{\sqrt{V(\mathbf y)V(\hat{\mathbf y})}} = \sqrt{\frac{V(\hat y)}{V(y)}} = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{k=1}^n (\hat y_k-\bar y)^2}{\sum_{k=1}^n (y_k-\bar y)^2}}=\sqrt{R^2}.$$ $\square$

Remark. Note that $V(\mathbf y)\neq 0$ does not always imply $V(\hat{\mathbf y})\neq 0$, consider for example $\mathbf x_1 = (-1, 0)$, $y_1 = 1$, $\mathbf x_2 = (1, 0)$, $y_2 = 0$ and $\mathbf x_3 = (1,1), y_3 = 1$, then $\beta=(2/3, 0)$, so that $V(\mathbf y)\neq 0$ but $V(\hat{\mathbf y})=0$.

Corollary. If $p=1$, (still working with intercept), the data of interest is the second column of $\mathbf X$, denoted by $\mathbf X_{:,1}$, which is a vector in $\mathbb R^n$, and in particular if $V(\mathbf X_{:,1})\neq 0$ and $\beta_1\neq 0$ (writing $\beta=(\beta_0,\beta_1)$), we have that $R^2$ is well-defined and the identity $$R^2 = \left(\frac{\text{Cov}(\mathbf y, \mathbf X_{:,1})}{\sqrt{V(\mathbf y)V(\mathbf X_{:,1})}}\right)^2$$ holds.

Proof. This follows directly from the Theorem and the identity $\hat{\mathbf y}= \vec\beta_0+\mathbf X_{:,1} \beta_1$, when writing $\beta=(\beta_0,\beta_1)$ and $\vec\beta_0=(\beta_0,\dots,\beta_0)^\top\in\mathbb R^n$. $\square$

[Footnote 1]. Other choices of a loss, such as the loss in absolute value or a cubed loss etc. can of course also be very useful, however quadratic loss is particularly pleasant to deal with mathematically thanks to its convexity and differentiability.
[Footnote 2] The name might be somewhat misleading, see for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explained_variation#Criticism.


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.