R² — where it appears
Named by 5 essays across 3 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
R² is a property of the design
One line, one residual spread, five studies that differ only in how far apart they placed their x values. R² runs from 0.021 to 0.849 and the estimated residual spread is 0.993 in every one of them. Nothing about the relationship changed.
The t statistic wearing different clothes
For a simple regression, t² = (n − 2)R²/(1 − R²), exactly, on every dataset — checked to sixteen significant figures over five hundred fits. So a paper reporting R² and a p-value has reported one number twice, and two studies with the same R² have points four times further from the line.
R² is not a measure of fit
Adding a predictor with no relationship to anything cannot reduce R², and in expectation raises it by 1/(n − 1). Twenty useless predictors on thirty points give an R² of 0.69 from pure noise.
The cliff that is a slope
A regression between two independent series is called significant 4.9% of the time at no persistence, 52.4% at a lag-one correlation of 0.9, and 83.4% at a unit root. The rule the field offers asks whether the last of those holds, and at 0.9 the unit-root test correctly refuses one 87.2% of the time.
The repair that keeps the question
A regression between two independent trending series is significant 82.9% of the time on random walks and 100.0% on trend-stationary ones. Subtracting a fitted line leaves 74.2% and 33.5%; differencing leaves 5.0% and 5.2% and throws away the trend the study was about.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Augmented dickey fullerAutocorrelationClosed formDeterministic trendEstimated varianceFalse-positiveNear-unit rootRandom walkSample sizeSpurious regressionStationarityStatistical power