I am a little confused about when you should or shouldn’t add polynomial terms to a multiple linear regression model. I know polynomials are used to capture the curvature in the data, but it always seems to be in the form of:

y=x1+x2+x21+x22+x1x2+c

What if you know that there is a linear relationship between y and x1, but a non-linear relationship between y and x2? Can you use a model in the form of:

y=x1+x2+x22+c

I guess my question is, is it valid to drop the x21 term and the x1x2 term, or do you have to follow the generic form of a polynomial regression model?

**Answer**

In addition to @mkt’s excellent answer, I thought I would provide a specific example for you to see so that you can develop some intuition.

**Generate Data for Example**

For this example, I generated some data using R as follows:

```
set.seed(124)
n <- 200
x1 <- rnorm(n, mean=0, sd=0.2)
x2 <- rnorm(n, mean=0, sd=0.5)
eps <- rnorm(n, mean=0, sd=1)
y = 1 + 10*x1 + 0.4*x2 + 0.8*x2^2 + eps
```

As you can see from the above, the data come from the model y=β0+β1∗x1+β2∗x2+β3∗x22+ϵ, where ϵ is a normally distributed random error term with mean 0 and unknown variance σ2. Furthermore, β0=1, β1=10, β2=0.4 and β3=0.8, while σ=1.

**Visualize the Generated Data via Coplots**

Given the simulated data on the outcome variable y and the predictor variables x1 and x2, we can visualize these data using *coplots*:

```
library(lattice)
coplot(y ~ x1 | x2,
number = 4, rows = 1,
panel = panel.smooth)
coplot(y ~ x2 | x1,
number = 4, rows = 1,
panel = panel.smooth)
```

The resulting coplots are shown below.

The first coplot shows scatterplots of y versus x1 when x2 belongs to four different ranges of observed values (which are overlapping) and enhances each of these scatterplots with a smooth, possibly non-linear fit whose shape is estimated from the data.

The second coplot shows scatterplots of y versus x2 when x1 belongs to four different ranges of observed values (which are overlapping) and enhances each of these scatterplots with a smooth fit.

The first coplot suggests that it is reasonable to assume that x1 has a linear effect on y when controlling for x2 and that this effect does not depend on x2.

The second coplot suggests that it is reasonable to assume that x2 has a quadratic effect on y when controlling for x1 and that this effect does not depend on x1.

**Fit a Correctly Specified Model**

The coplots suggest fitting the following model to the data, which allows for a linear effect of x1 and a quadratic effect of x2:

```
m <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2 + I(x2^2))
```

**Construct Component Plus Residual Plots for the Correctly Specified Model**

Once the correctly specified model is fitted to the data, we can examine *component plus residual plots* for each predictor included in the model:

```
library(car)
crPlots(m)
```

These component plus residual plots are shown below and suggest that the model was correctly specified since they display no evidence of nonlinearity, etc. Indeed, in each of these plots, there is no obvious discrepancy between the dotted blue line suggestive of a linear effect of the corresponding predictor, and the solid magenta line suggestive of a non-linear effect of that predictor in the model.

**Fit an Incorrectly Specified Model**

Let’s play the devil’s advocate and say that our lm() model was in fact incorrectly specified (i.e., misspecified), in the sense that it omitted the quadratic term I(x2^2):

```
m.mis <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2)
```

**Construct Component Plus Residual Plots for the Incorrectly Specified Model**

If we were to construct *component plus residual plots* for the misspecified model, we would immediately see a suggestion of non-linearity of the effect of x2 in the misspecified model:

```
crPlots(m.mis)
```

In other words, as seen below, the misspecified model failed to capture the quadratic effect of x2 and this effect shows up in the component plus residual plot corresponding to the predictor x2 in the misspecified model.

The misspecification of the effect of x2 in the model m.mis would also be apparent when examining plots of the residuals associated with this model against each of the predictors x1 and x2:

```
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
plot(residuals(m.mis) ~ x1, pch=20, col="darkred")
abline(h=0, lty=2, col="blue", lwd=2)
plot(residuals(m.mis) ~ x2, pch=20, col="darkred")
abline(h=0, lty=2, col="blue", lwd=2)
```

As seen below, the plot of residuals associated with m.mis versus x2 exhibits a clear quadratic pattern, suggesting that the model m.mis failed to capture this systematic pattern.

**Augment the Incorrectly Specified Model**

To correctly specify the model m.mis, we would need to augment it so that it also includes the term I(x2^2):

```
m <- lm(y ~ x1 + x2 + I(x2^2))
```

Here are the plots of the residuals versus x1 and x2 for this correctly specified model:

```
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
plot(residuals(m) ~ x1, pch=20, col="darkred")
abline(h=0, lty=2, col="blue", lwd=2)
plot(residuals(m) ~ x2, pch=20, col="darkred")
abline(h=0, lty=2, col="blue", lwd=2)
```

Notice that the quadratic pattern previously seen in the plot of residuals versus x2 for the misspecified model m.mis has now disappeared from the plot of residuals versus x2 for the correctly specified model m.

Note that the vertical axis of all the plots of residuals versus x1 and x2 shown here should be labelled as “Residual”. For some reason, R Studio cuts that label off.

**Attribution***Source : Link , Question Author : Amy K , Answer Author : Isabella Ghement*