1. Introduction
Logistic regression is a wellknown statistical model which is commonly used in the situation where the output is a binary random variable. It has a wide range of applications including machine learning [1], public health [11], social sciences, ecology [9] and econometry [17]. In what follows, we will consider a sequence of random variables taking values in , and we will assume that
is a sequence of independent and identically distributed random vectors such that, that for all
, the conditional distribution of knowing [8]. More precisely, let be the unknown parameter belonging to of the logistic regression. For all , we denote and we assume thatOur goal is the estimation of the vector of parameters . For that purpose, let be the convex positive function defined, for all , by
where and shares the same distribution as . We clearly have . Hence, one can easily check that the unknown parameter satisfies
(1.1) 
Consequently, under some standard convexity assumptions on ,
(1.2) 
Since there is no explicit solution of the equation , it is necessary to make use of an approximation algorithm in order to estimate .
Usually, when the sample size is fixed, we approximate the solution with the help of a Newton rootfinding numerical algorithm.
However, when the data streams arrive sequentially and at high speed, it is much more appropriate and efficient to treat them
with the help of stochastic gradient algorithms. We refer the reader to the seminal paper [15] and to its averaged version
[14, 16], as well as to the more recent contributions on the logistic regression
[1, 6, 5]. One can observe that in these last references, the conditional distribution
is the Rademacher distribution, instead of the usual Bernoulli one.
In this paper, we propose an alternative strategy to stochastic gradient algorithms, in the spirit of the Newton algorithm, in the sense that the step sequence of stochastic gradient algorithms is replaced by recursive estimates of the inverse of the Hessian matrix of the function we are minimizing. This strategy enables us to properly deal with the situation where the Hessian matrix has eigenvalues with significantly different absolute values. Indeed, in that case, it can be necessary to adapt automatically the step of the algorithm in all directions. To be more precise, we propose to estimate the unknown parameter
with the help of a stochastic Newton algorithm given, for all , bywhere the initial value is a bounded vector of which can be arbitrarily chosen and is a positive definite and deterministic matrix. For the sake of simplicity and in all the sequel, we take where
stands for the identity matrix of order
. One can observe thatMoreover, is updated recursively, thanks to Riccati’s equation ([4], page 96)
which enables us to avoid the useless inversion of a matrix at each iteration of the algorithm. Furthermore,
the matrix is an estimate of the Hessian matrix at the unknown value .
In order to ensure the convergence of the stochastic Newton algorithm, a modified
version of this algorithm is provided. We shall prove its asymptotic efficiency by establishing its almost sure convergence
and its asymptotic normality.
This algorithm is closely related to the iterative one used to estimate the unknown vector
of a linear regression model satisfying, for all
, . As a matter of fact, the updating of the least squares estimator of the parameter is given bywhere the initial value can be arbitrarily chosen and is a positive definite deterministic matrix.
This algorithm can be considered as a Newton stochastic algorithm since the matrix is an estimate of the Hessian matrix of the least squares criterion
.
To the best of our knowledge and apart from the least squares estimate mentioned above, stochastic Newton algorithms are hardly ever used and studied since they often require
the inversion of a matrix at each step, which can be very expensive in term of time calculation. An alternative to the stochastic Newton algorithm is the BFGS algorithm
[12, 10, 2]
based on the recursive estimation of a matrix whose behavior is closed to the one of the inverse of the Hessian matrix.
Nevertheless, this last estimate does not converge to the exact inverse of the Hessian matrix. Consequently, the estimation of the unknown vector
is not satisfactory.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the framework and our main assumptions.
In Section 3, we introduce our new stochastic Newton algorithm.
Section 4 is devoted to its almost sure convergence as well as its asymptotic normality. Our theoretical results are
illustrated by numerical experiments in Section 5. Finally, all technical proofs are postponed to Sections 6
and 7.
2. Framework
In what follows, we shall consider a couple of random variables taking values in where is a positive integer, and such that
with and where is the unknown parameter to estimate. We recall that is a minimizer of the convex function defined, for all , by
(2.1) 
In all the sequel, we assume that the following assumptions are satisfied.

The Hessian matrix is positive definite.
These assumptions ensure that is the unique minimizer of the functional . Assumption (A1) enables us to find a first lower bound for the smallest eigenvalue of the estimates of the Hessian matrix, while assumptions (A1) and (A2) give the unicity of the minimizer of and ensure that the functional is twice continuously differentiable. More precisely, for all , we have
(2.2)  
(2.3) 
Remark 2.1.
In the previous literature, it is more usual to consider a variable taking values in , which means that is the Rademacher distribution [1, 6, 5]. In this context, is a minimizer of the functional defined, for all , by
Under assumptions, the functional is twice continuously differentiable and, for all ,
One can observe that the Hessian matrix remains the same. It ensures that the algorithm introduced in Section 3 can be adapted to this functional and that all the results given in Section 4 still hold in this case.
3. Stochastic Newton algorithm
In order to deal with massive data acquired online, let us recall that the stochastic Newton algorithm presented in the introduction is given, for all , by
(3.1)  
(3.2)  
(3.3) 
where the initial value is a bounded vector of which can be arbitrarily chosen and . Unfortunately, we were not able to prove that converges almost surely to the Hessian matrix , as well as to establish the almost sure convergence of to . This is the reason why we slightly modify our strategy by proposing a truncated version of previous estimates given, for all , by
(3.4)  
(3.5)  
(3.6) 
where the initial value is a bounded vector of which can be arbitrarily chosen, and is a sequence of random variable defined, for some positive constant , by
(3.7) 
with . From now on and for the sake of simplicity, we assume that . It immediately implies that, for all , . However, the proofs remains true for any . We already saw in Section 1 that coincides with the exact inverse of the weighted matrix given, for all , by
(3.8) 
Moreover, we will see in Section 4 that, even with this truncation of the estimate of the Hessian matrix, converges almost surely to the Hessian matrix . Consequently, we will still have an optimal asymptotic behavior of the estimator of .
4. Main results
Our first result deals with the almost sure convergence of our estimates of and the Hessian matrix . For all , denote
Theorem 4.1.
Assume that (A1) and (A2) are satisfied. Then, we have the almost sure convergences
(4.1) 
(4.2) 
We now focus on the almost sure rates of convergence of our estimate of .
Theorem 4.2.
Assume that (A1) and (A2) are satisfied. Then, we have for all ,
(4.3) 
Moreover, suppose the random vector has a finite moment of order . Then, we have
(4.4) 
The almost sure rates of convergence of our estimate of the Hessian matrix and its inverse are as follows.
Theorem 4.3.
Assume that (A1) and (A2) are satisfied and that the random vector has a finite moment of order . Then, we have for all ,
(4.5) 
In addition, we also have
(4.6) 
Remark 4.1.
One can observe that we do not obtain the parametric rate for these estimates. This is due to the truncation which slightly modifies our estimation procedure. However, without this truncation, we were not able to establish the almost sure convergence of any estimate. Finally, the last result (4.6) ensures that our estimation procedure performs pretty well and that the estimator has an optimal asymptotic behavior.
Theorem 4.4.
Assume that (A1) and (A2) are satisfied and that the random vector has a finite moment of order . Then, we have the asymptotic normality
(4.7) 
Remark 4.2.
We deduce from (4.2) and (4.7) that
(4.8) 
Convergence (4.8) allows us to build confidence regions for the parameter . Moreover, for any vector different from zero, we also have
(4.9) 
Confidence intervals and significance tests for the components of can be designed from (4.9). One can observe that our stochastic Newton algorithm has the same asymptotic behavior as the averaged version of a stochastic gradient algorithm [5, 7, 13].
5. Numerical experiments
The goal of this section is to illustrate the asymptotic behavior of the truncated stochastic Newton algorithm (TSN) defined by equation (3.5). For that purpose, we will focus on the model introduced in [3] and used for comparing several gradient algorithms. We shall compare the numerical performances of the TSN algorithm with those obtained with three different algorithms : the Stochastic Newton (SN) algorithm given by equation (3.3), the stochastic gradient algorithm (SG), and the averaged stochastic gradient algorithm (ASG). Let us mention that simulations were carried out using the statistical software R.
5.1. Experiment model
We focus on the model introduced in [3], defined by
where and is a random vector of with
with independent coordinates uniformly distributed on the interval
. Moreover the unknown parameter . This model is particularly interresting since it leads to a Hessian matrix with eigenvalues of different order sizes. Indeed, one can see in Table 1 that the smallest eigenvalue of is close to 4.422 while its largest eigenvalue is close to 0.1239.0.1239  2.832  2.822  2.816  2.778  2.806 

2.651  2.517  2.1567  9.012  4.422 
5.2. Comparison of the different algorithms
Our comparisons are based on the mean squared error (MSE) defined, for all estimate of , by
We simulate samples wth a maximum number of iterations . For each sample, we estimate the unknown parameter using the four algorithms (TSN, SN, SG, ASG) which are initialized identically by choosing the initial value uniformly in a compact subset containing the true value . For the TSN and SN algorithms, we take . In addition, for the TSN algorithm, we choose the truncation term defined by and . Finally, to be fairplay, we choose the best step sequence for the SG algorithm with the help of a cross validation method. Figure 1 shows the decreasing behavior of the MSE, calculated for the four algorithms, as the number of iterations grows from to .
It is clear that the stochastic Newton algorithms perform much more better than the stochastic gradient algorithms
The bad behavior of the stochastic gradient algorithms is certainly due to the fact that the eigenvalues of the Hessian
matrix are at different scales. One can also observe that it is quite useless to average the SG algorithm.
On can find in Figure 2 the boxplots of the values of the squared error
computed for the TSN and SN algorithms, as well as for the deterministic NewtonRaphson algorithm (NR).
5.3. Some comments concerning the truncation.
To close this section, let us make some comments concerning the truncation term introduced in the TSN algorithm. This short numerical experiment tends to show that the use of the truncation is artificial and useless. Indeed, one can take the constant in (3.7) as small as possible and see that the TSN and SN algorithms match. Finally, an inappropriate choice of can lead to a poor numerical behavior of the TSN algorithm.
6. Proofs of the almost sure convergence results
6.1. Two technical lemmas
We start the proofs of the almost sure convergence results with two technical lemmas.
Lemma 6.1.
Assume that the random vector has a finite moment of order . Then, we have the almost sure convergence for all ,
(6.1) 
Remark 6.1.
We obtain from (3.7) together with (3.8) that for all ,
(6.2) 
Denote by the minimum eigenvalue of the positive definite matrix . We immediately obtain from (6.1) and (6.2) that for large enough
where stands for the minimum eigenvalue of the positive definite deterministic matrix . Consequently, we have under assumption (A1) that for large enough,
Therefore, as soon as ,
(6.3) 
Proof.
It follows from a straightforward Abel transform calculation that
(6.4)  
where and for all ,
On the one hand, we obtain from the standard strong law of large numbers that
(6.5) 
On the other hand,
which implies that
Then, we deduce from Toeplitz’s lemma given e.g. in ([4], page 54) that
(6.6) 
Consequently, we obtain from (6.4) together with (6.5) and (6.6) that
which immediately leads to (6.1). ∎
Our second lemma concerns a useful Lipschitz property of the function defined, for all , by
(6.7) 
Lemma 6.2.
For all , we have
(6.8) 
6.2. Proof of Theorem 4.1.
We are now in the position to proceed to the proof of the almost sure convergence (4.1). By a Taylor expansion of the twice continuously differentiable functional , there exists such that
(6.11) 
We clearly have from (2.3) that
Hence, we obtain from (3.5) together with (6.11) that
where . Since , it implies that
(6.12) 
Let be the filtration given, for all , by . We clearly have . Consequently, we obtain from (6.12) that
(6.13) 
Our goal is now to apply the RobbinsSiegmund theorem ([4], page 18) to the three positive sequences , and given by ,
It clearly follows from (6.13) that
Moreover, we already saw from (6.3) that
(6.14) 
Consequently, we can deduce from the RobbinsSiegmund theorem that convergences almost surely to a finite random variable and
(6.15) 
Furthermore, since , we get from (6.15) that
(6.16) 
In addition, we obtain from (3.7) together with (3.8) that
since, for all , . Therefore, (6.5) ensures that for large enough
where is for the maximum eigenvalue of the positive definite deterministic matrix . It implies that
(6.17) 
Hence, it follows from the conjunction of (6.16) and (6.17) that converges to almost surely. It means that converges almost surely to the unique zero of the gradient, which is exactly what we wanted to prove. It remains to prove the almost sure convergence (4.2). We infer from (3.8) that
(6.18) 
We now give the convergence of the two terms on the righthand side of (6.18). For the first one, one can observe that as soon as . Consequently,
It implies that
However, one can easily check from Lemma 6.1 that
It means that the first term on the righthand side of (6.18) goes to almost surely. We now study the convergence of the second term on the righthand side of (6.18) which can be rewritten as
On the one hand, thanks to the standard strong law of large numbers, we clearly have
(6.19) 
On the other hand, denote by the remainder
We can split into two terms where, for some positive constant ,
It follows from the Lipschitz property of the function given is Lemma 6.2 that
Hence, we deduce from (4.1) together with (6.5) that
(6.20) 
Furthermore, we also have
We deduce once again from the strong law of large numbers that
which implies via (6.20) that for any positive constant ,
(6.21) 
Nonetheless, we obtain from the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem that
Consequently, we find from (6.21)
Finally, (4.2) follows from (6.18) and (6.19), which achieves the proof of Theorem 4.1.
Comments
There are no comments yet.