Students in statistics or data science usually learn early on that when the sample size n is large relative to the number of variables p, fitting a logistic model by the method of maximum likelihood produces estimates that are consistent and that there are wellknown formulas that quantify the variability of these estimates which are used for the purpose of statistical inference. We are often told that these calculations are approximately valid if we have 5 to 10 observations per unknown parameter. This paper shows that this is far from the case, and consequently, inferences produced by common software packages are often unreliable. Consider a logistic model with independent features in which n and p become increasingly large in a fixed ratio. We prove that (i) the maximum-likelihood estimate (MLE) is biased, (ii) the variability of the MLE is far greater than classically estimated, and (iii) the likelihood-ratio test (LRT) is not distributed as a χ 2 . The bias of the MLE yields wrong predictions for the probability of a case based on observed values of the covariates. We present a theory, which provides explicit expressions for the asymptotic bias and variance of the MLE and the asymptotic distribution of the LRT. We empirically demonstrate that these results are accurate in finite samples. Our results depend only on a single measure of signal strength, which leads to concrete proposals for obtaining accurate inference in finite samples through the estimate of this measure. logistic regression | high-dimensional inference | maximum-likelihood estimate | likelihood-ratio test
The paper REF studies the asymptotic bias of the unconstrained MLE, showing that the unconstrained MLE is not consistent.
A modern maximum-likelihood theory for high-dimensional logistic regression
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Medicine Mathematics