Student: Aliyev Balakishi

Assumptions
Standard linear regression models with standard estimation techniques make a number of assumptions about the predictor variables, the response variables and their relationship. Numerous extensions have been developed that allow each of these assumptions to be relaxed (i.e. reduced to a weaker form), and in some cases eliminated entirely. Generally these extensions make the estimation procedure more complex and time-consuming, and may also require more data in order to produce an equally precise model.
The following are the major assumptions made by standard linear regression models with standard estimation techniques (e.g. ordinary least squares):

• 
  Weak exogeneity. This essentially means that the predictor variables x can be treated as fixed values, rather than random variables. This means, for example, that the predictor variables are assumed to be error-free—that is, not contaminated with measurement errors. Although this assumption is not realistic in many settings, dropping it leads to significantly more difficult errors-in-variables models.
  
• 
  Linearity. This means that the mean of the response variable is a linear combination of the parameters (regression coefficients) and the predictor variables. Note that this assumption is much less restrictive than it may at first seem. Because the predictor variables are treated as fixed values (see above), linearity is really only a restriction on the parameters. The predictor variables themselves can be arbitrarily transformed, and in fact multiple copies of the same underlying predictor variable can be added, each one transformed differently. This technique is used, for example, in polynomial regression, which uses linear regression to fit the response variable as an arbitrary polynomial function (up to a given degree) of a predictor variable. With this much flexibility, models such as polynomial regression often have "too much power", in that they tend to overfit the data. As a result, some kind of regularization must typically be used to prevent unreasonable solutions coming out of the estimation process. Common examples are ridge regression and lasso regression. Bayesian linear regression can also be used, which by its nature is more or less immune to the problem of overfitting. (In fact, ridge regression and lasso regression can both be viewed as special cases of Bayesian linear regression, with particular types of prior distributions placed on the regression coefficients.)
  
• 
  Constant variance (a.k.a. homoscedasticity). This means that the variance of the errors does not depend on the values of the predictor variables. Thus the variability of the responses for given fixed values of the predictors is the same regardless of how large or small the responses are. This is often not the case, as a variable whose mean is large will typically have a greater variance than one whose mean is small. For example, a person whose income is predicted to be $100,000 may easily have an actual income of $80,000 or $120,000—i.e., a standard deviation of around $20,000—while another person with a predicted income of $10,000 is unlikely to have the same $20,000 standard deviation, since that would imply their actual income could vary anywhere between −$10,000 and $30,000. (In fact, as this shows, in many cases—often the same cases where the assumption of normally distributed errors fails—the variance or standard deviation should be predicted to be proportional to the mean, rather than constant.) The absence of homoscedasticity is called heteroscedasticity. In order to check this assumption, a plot of residuals versus predicted values (or the values of each individual predictor) can be examined for a "fanning effect" (i.e., increasing or decreasing vertical spread as one moves left to right on the plot). A plot of the absolute or squared residuals versus the predicted values (or each predictor) can also be examined for a trend or curvature. Formal tests can also be used; see Heteroscedasticity. The presence of heteroscedasticity will result in an overall "average" estimate of variance being used instead of one that takes into account the true variance structure. This leads to less precise (but in the case of ordinary least squares, not biased) parameter estimates and biased standard errors, resulting in misleading tests and interval estimates. The mean squared error for the model will also be wrong. Various estimation techniques including weighted least squares and the use of heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors can handle heteroscedasticity in a quite general way. Bayesian linear regression techniques can also be used when the variance is assumed to be a function of the mean. It is also possible in some cases to fix the problem by applying a transformation to the response variable (e.g., fitting the logarithm of the response variable using a linear regression model, which implies that the response variable itself has a log-normal distribution rather than a normal distribution).
  

Example of a cubic polynomial regression, which is a type of linear regression. Although polynomial regression fits a nonlinear model to the data, as a statistical estimation problem it is linear, in the sense that the regression function E(y | x) is linear in the unknown parameters that are estimated from the data. For this reason, polynomial regression is considered to be a special case of multiple linear regression.







To check for violations of the assumptions of linearity, constant variance, and independence of errors within a linear regression model, the residuals are typically plotted against the predicted values (or each of the individual predictors). An apparently random scatter of points about the horizontal midline at 0 is ideal, but cannot rule out certain kinds of violations such as autocorrelation in the errors or their correlation with one or more covariates.