Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Assume that all the entries of an $n \times n$ correlation matrix which are not on the main diagonal are equal to $q$. Find upper and lower bounds on the possible values of $q$.

I know that the matrix should be positive semidefinite but how to proceed to get the upper and lower bounds?


share|cite|improve this question
Do you know anything else about correlation matrices, other than positive semidefinite? Anything special about their form, how they are calculated? – Gerry Myerson Aug 26 '11 at 4:02
Bottom line: $-1/(n-1) \le q \le 1$. – Michael Hardy Aug 29 '11 at 15:40

Consider $n$ unit-variance random variables $X_1, X_2, \ldots X_n$ with the property that $\operatorname{cov}(X_i,X_j) = q$ for all $i \neq j$. Then, the covariance matrix of these random variables is the same as the correlation matrix. Now $$\begin{align*} \operatorname{var}(X_1+X_2+\cdots+X_n) &= \sum_{i=1}^n \operatorname{var}(X_i) + 2\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=i+1}^n\operatorname{cov}(X_i,X_j)\tag{1}\\ &= n + n(n-1)q\\ &\geq 0 \end{align*}$$ and so it must be that $$q \geq -\frac{1}{n-1}$$ as Michael Hardy noted in a succinct comment on the question. The upper bound is, of course, $q \leq 1$. Both bounds are achievable. Obviously, if all the $X_i$ are the same random variable $X$, then $q = 1$. For the lower bound, suppose that the $X_i$ are independent unit-variance random variables so that they enjoy the desired constant correlation with $q=0$. For each $i$, set $Y_i = X_i-\bar{X}$ where $$\bar{X} = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n X_i.$$ Then, $$\operatorname{var}(Y_i) = \left(\frac{n-1}{n}\right)^2 + (n-1)\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^2 = \frac{n-1}{n}$$ while for $i \neq j$, $$\begin{align} \operatorname{cov}(Y_i,Y_j) &= \operatorname{cov}(X_i - \bar{X}, Y_j- \bar{X})\\ &= \operatorname{cov}(X_i,X_j) - \operatorname{cov}(X_i,\bar{X}) - \operatorname{cov}(X_j,\bar{X})+ \operatorname{var}(\bar{X})\\ &= 0 - \frac{1}{n} - \frac{1}{n} + \frac{1}{n}\\ &= -\frac{1}{n} \end{align}$$ showing that all the correlation coefficients do indeed have the minimum value $$ \frac{-1/n}{\sqrt{(n-1)/n}\sqrt{(n-1)/n}} = -\frac{1}{n-1}.$$

Returning to $(1)$, note that if the correlation coefficients are not required to all have the same value, then from $(1)$, we get that the sum of the $n(n-1)$ correlations must be at least $-n$. Thus, the average of the $n(n-1)$ correlations is at least $-1/(n-1)$ and since at least one correlation must be as large as the average, we can assert that

In any collection of $n$ random variables $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_n$ with finite variance, there must be at least one pair of random variables $(X_i,X_j)$ (with $i\neq j$) for which $$\operatorname{cov}(X_i,X_j) \geq -\frac{1}{n-1}$$

share|cite|improve this answer

A general scheme for the answer is immediately obvious by generalization of the following example. Assume the correlation-matrix $R$ of size nxn where in the example n=5 and $R=L \cdot L^T$ . Then define L with a unknown value $a$ $$ L=\begin{bmatrix} a&a&a&a&.&.&.&.&.&. \\ -a&.&.&.&a&a&a&.&.&. \\ .&-a&.&.&-a&.&.&a&a&. \\ .&.&-a&.&.&-a&.&-a&.&a \\ .&.&.&-a&.&.&-a&.&-a&-a \\ \end{bmatrix} $$ Then all offdiagonal entries in $R=L \cdot L^T$ are $r_{k,j}=-a^2$ and the diagonal entries are $r_{k,k}=4 a^2$. To have $r_{k,k}=1$ we must have $a=\sqrt{1 \over 4} $ and thus $q = r_{k,j}=-{1 \over 4}$.
It is immediately obvious how this is generalized, so for some $n$ we have $q=-{1 \over n-1}$

Unfortunately, this is only an illustrative example so far. It would be nice to show, that this defines indeed also the highest possible value for $-q$, but I do not see it at the moment how this could be done in a similarly obvious manner ...

share|cite|improve this answer

Since it's a correlation matrix, the diagonal entries are equal to 1 and the off-diagonal entries are in $[-1,1]$. Now write the matrix as $aP+bQ$ where $P$ is the $n\times n$ matrix in which every entry is $1/n$, so it's the matrix of the orthogonal projection onto the line where all components of the vector are equal, and $Q = I - P$. Then you can exploit the fact that $P$ and $Q$ are complementary orthogonal projections onto spaces of dimensions $1$ and $n-1$. From that it follows that the matrix $aP+bQ$ can be diagonalized as $$ \begin{bmatrix} a \\ & b \\ & & b \\ & & & b \\ & & & & \ddots \end{bmatrix} $$ This should be a covariance matrix. To see that, recall that (1) a correlation matrix is a covariance matrix in which the diagonal entries are all 1, and (2) if $A$ is the matrix of covariances of a random vector $X$, the $MAM^\top$ is the matrix of covariances of $MX$ ($M$ need not generally be a square matrix, but in this case it is).

Since the diagonal matrix above is a covariance matrix, $a$ and $b$ cannot be negative. So what must $q$ be in order that $a$ and $b$ be nonnegative?

share|cite|improve this answer
BTW, a simple instance in which one of the two opposite extreme cases is realized is where $(X_1,\dots,X_n) = (0,0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0,0)$ with a $1$ in the $i$th place, with probability $1/n$ for each value of $i$. Clearly $\operatorname{corr}(X_i,X_j)$ is $1$ if $i=j$ and is negative if $i\neq j$, and close to $0$ if $n$ is large. – Michael Hardy Aug 26 '11 at 17:55
Is the case included, that all offdiagonal entries are $\small -1$ ? If I approach that value from above, say going to $\small -1+1e-80 $ , the cholesky-decompositions begin to show much increasing values. So I suggest to check carefully whether all values can be $\small -1$ – Gottfried Helms Aug 26 '11 at 19:06
They cannot be $-1$ except in the simplest non-vacuous special case, that $n=2$. The lower bound is negative, but nowhere near $-1$. It depends on $n$. – Michael Hardy Aug 26 '11 at 19:20
@GottfriedHelms I just posted an answer showing that at least one off-diagonal orrelation must have value $-1/(n-1)$ or more, and so all off-diagonal values being $-1$ is not a possibility except for the trivial case $n=2$. – Dilip Sarwate Feb 22 '13 at 17:49
@dilip: thank you for the notification! – Gottfried Helms Feb 22 '13 at 18:16

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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