# 1.1. Binary Choice Problem

$\newcommand{\argmin}{\mathop{\mathrm{argmin}}\limits}$ $\newcommand{\argmax}{\mathop{\mathrm{argmax}}\limits}$

The first chapter of Empirical Processes in M-estimation (van de Geer, 2000) devotes to introduction to the field. To be specific, it introduces two main tools that will be used throughout the textbook: the law of large numbers and the central limit theorem.

But wait, didn’t we already studied the two in probability theory? It turns out, in the empirical process theory, we want to study the asymptotics of estimates on a function space, not on a Euclidean space. This requires other types of the theorems, namely the uniform law of large numbers (ULLN) and the functional central limit theorem (Donsker’s theorem; fCLT).

My major goal is to review the first four chapters of van de Geer (2000). This covers the theory of ULLN and its application to consistency. For the latter (fCLT) I would like to mention the basics of it when reviewing Billingsley (1999)1.

## Notation and Settings

Let $(\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{A})$ be a measurable space. Let $P$ be a probability measure on such space and $g: \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb R.$ Suppose we have a random sample

$X_1, \cdots, X_n \overset{\text{i.i.d.}} \sim P.$

As I briefly mentioned above, the two major theorems of probability theory is the strong law of large numbers and the central limit theorem.

\begin{aligned} \text{SLLN: }\;& E|g(X_1)| < \infty \implies \frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n g(X_i) \to Eg(X_1) \text{ a.s.} \\ \text{CLT: }\;& \sigma_g^2 := \text{Var}(g(X_1)) < \infty \implies \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{i=1}^n \big(g(X_i)-Eg(X_i)\big) \overset{d}{\to} \mathcal{N}(0,1) \end{aligned} \tag{1}

One important remark is that this results hold only for a fixed $g.$ Our interest from now on lies on the case where $g$ is not fixed.

Consider a class of functions $\mathcal{G} = \{g_\theta: \mathcal{X} \to \mathbb R,~ \theta\in\Theta\}$ indexed by a paramter $\theta$ in a metric space $\Theta.$ We want to prove or disprove that the result (1) holds uniformly on $\mathcal{G}.$ In addition, if (1) uniformly holds, then for $(\hat \theta_n)_ {n\in\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\hat \theta_n \overset{P}{\to} \theta_0,$ we want to show the consistency and asymptotic normality of $g_{\hat \theta_n}.$

Why is the asymptotic theory regarding $g_ {\hat\theta_n}$ important? As a motivating example, let’s consider a binary classification model. For the asymptotics rates, we define small-o and big-o notations in probability as follows.

$$X_n = o_P(a_n) \iff \lim_n P\left(\left| \frac{X_n}{a_n} \right| > \epsilon\right) = 0,~ \forall \epsilon > 0. \\ X_n = \mathcal{O}_P(a_n) \iff \lim_M\limsup_n P\left(\left| \frac{X_n}{a_n} \right| > M\right) = 0.$$

In other words, $o_P$ is merely a convergence in probability while $\mathcal{O}_P$ implies stochastic boundedness. That is,

$\hat\theta_n \overset{P}{\to} \theta_0 \iff \hat \theta_n = \theta_0 + o_P(1). \\ \hat \theta_n = E\hat\theta_n + \mathcal{O}_p\left(\sqrt{\text{Var}(\hat\theta_n)}\right).$

## Binary choice model

Suppose we want to predict $Y_i$ (whether the $i$th individual has a job) given information $Z_i$ (education level of the $i$th individual).

### (case 1) parametric model

Our first model is a paramtric one. Construct a logistic regression model as follows.

$Y_i \in \{0, 1\},~ Z_i \in \mathbb R,~ 1\le i\le n.\\ X_i = (Y_i, Z_i)\text{'s are IID.} \\ P(Y=1|Z=z) = F_0(\alpha_0 + \theta_0z), \\ F_0 = \frac{e^x}{1+e^x} \text{ is the CDF of the logistic distribution}.$

Further assume that $\alpha_0=0$ so that $\theta_0 \in \mathbb R$ is the only unknown parameter. Our maximum likelihood estimator $\hat \theta_n$ of $\theta_0$ is given as

$\hat \theta_n = \argmax_\theta \sum_{i=1}^n \log p_\theta(Y_i|Z_i)$

where

$p_\theta(y|z) = F_0(\theta_z)^y \{ 1 - F_0(\theta z) \}^{1-y}$

is the conditional probability mass of $y$ given $z$.

Define the score function $s_1$ of single observation:

\begin{aligned} s_1(\theta) &= s_1(\theta;y,z) := \frac{d}{d\theta} \log p_\theta(y|z) \\ &= \frac{d}{d\theta} \left\{ y\log F_0(\theta z) + (1-y)\log (1-F_0(\theta z)) \right\} \\ &= yz(1-F_0(\theta z)) - (1-y)zF_0(\theta z) \\ &= z(y-F_0(\theta z)). \end{aligned}

Define the “Fisher information” as follows.

$I_{\theta_0} := Eg_{\theta_0}(Z),$

where

$g_\theta(z) := \begin{cases} -\frac{s_1(\theta)-s_1(\theta_0)}{\theta-\theta_0} = z\cdot\frac{F_0(\theta z) - F_0(\theta_0z)}{\theta-\theta_0},& \text{if } \theta \ne \theta_0 \\ -\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_0}s_1(\theta) = z^2F_0(\theta_0z)(1-F_0(\theta_0z)),& \text{if } \theta=\theta_0 \end{cases}$

can be regarded as a “second derivative” of $\log p_\theta$ and a “derivative” of $-s_1(\theta)$ evaluated at $\theta_0.$

Our first result gives motivation to some kind of law of large numbers for $g_ {\hat\theta_n}$.

$$\frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n g_{\hat\theta_n}(Z_i) \overset{P}{\to} I_{\theta_0} > 0 \implies \sqrt{n}(\hat\theta_n - \theta_0) \overset{d}{\to} \mathcal{N}(0, 1/I_{\theta_0}).$$
expand proof

\begin{aligned} 0 &= \sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\hat\theta_n; Y_i, Z_i) \\ &= \sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\theta_0) + (\hat\theta_n - \theta_0)\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{s_1(\hat\theta_n) - s_1(\theta_0)}{\hat\theta_n-\theta_0} \\ &= \sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\theta_0) - (\hat\theta_n-\theta_0)\sum_{i=1}^n g_{\hat\theta_n}(Z_i). \end{aligned} Organizing the terms yields \begin{aligned} \sqrt n (\hat\theta_n - \theta_0) &= \sqrt n \cdot \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\theta_0;Y_i,Z_i)}{\sum_{i=1}^n g_{\hat\theta_n}(Z_i)} \\ &=\underbrace{ \left( \frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\theta_0) \right) }_{\text{(i)}} / \underbrace{ \left( \frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n g_{\hat\theta_n}(Z_i) \right) }_{\text{(ii)}} \end{aligned} Therefore the result follows from the facts $$E_{\theta_0}s_1(\theta_0) = 0,~\text{Var}_{\theta_0}(s_1(\theta_0)) = I_{\theta_0}$$ and $$\text{(i)} \overset d \to \mathcal{N}(0,1), \\ \text{(ii)} \overset P \to I_{\theta_0}.$$

Since $g_ {\hat\theta_n}$ is indexed by $\hat\theta_n$ which is random, to achieve the results above, we need to find a law of large numbers that uniformly bounds all possible $g_\theta,$ $\theta\in\mathbb R.$

Similarly, extension of the central limit theorem can also yield the same result. For this, define

$m(\theta) = m_\theta := E_{\theta_0}s_1(\theta), \\ \sigma^2(\theta) = \sigma_\theta^2 := \text{Var}_{\theta_0}s_1(\theta)$

be moments of $s_1(\theta)$ under the true parameter $\theta_0.$ Note that $m(\theta_0)=0,$ $\sigma^2(\theta_0)=I_{\theta_0}$ and by the central limit theorem,

$\frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n \big(s_1(\theta)-m(\theta)\big) \overset d \to \mathcal{N}(0, \sigma^2_\theta),~ \forall \theta.$
Suppose $\hat\theta_n = \theta_0 + o_P(1)$ and $$\frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n \big(s_1(\hat\theta_n)-m(\hat\theta_n)\big) = \frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n \big(s_1(\theta_0)-m(\theta_0)\big) + o_P(1).$$ Then, $$\sqrt{n}(\hat\theta_n - \theta_0) \overset{d}{\to} \mathcal{N}(0, 1/I_{\theta_0}).$$
expand proof

\begin{aligned} 0 &= \frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\hat\theta_n) \\ &= \frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n \big( s_1(\hat\theta_n) - m(\hat\theta_n) \big) + \sqrt n \cdot m(\hat\theta_n) \\ &= \frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n \big( s_1(\theta_0) - m(\theta_0) \big) + o_P(1) + \sqrt n \cdot m(\hat\theta_n) \\ &= \frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\theta_0) + o_P(1) + \sqrt n \cdot \big( m(\hat\theta_n) - m(\theta_0) \big) \\ &= \frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\theta_0) + o_P(1) - \sqrt n \cdot (\hat\theta_n - \theta_0)(I_{\theta_0} + o_P(1)) \end{aligned} The last equality holds since for some $h$ that $h(\hat\theta_n)\overset{P}{\to} 0$ as $\hat\theta_n \overset{P}{\to} \theta_0,$ \begin{aligned} m(\hat\theta_n) &= m(\theta_0) + (m'(\theta_0) + h(\hat\theta_n))(\hat\theta_n - \theta_0) \\ &= m(\theta_0) - (-I_{\theta_0} + o_P(1))(\hat\theta_n - \theta_0). \end{aligned} Organizing the terms gives $$\sqrt n (\hat\theta_n - \theta_0) = \left( \frac 1 {\sqrt n} \sum_{i=1}^n s_1(\theta_0) + o_P(1) \right) / \left( I_{\theta_0} + o_P(1) \right) \overset d \to \mathcal{N}(0, 1/I_{\theta_0}).$$

### (case 2) nonparametric isotonic model

The model assumption that the conditional probability follows logistic distribution is quite strong. Instead, we will impose as few assumptions as possible and construct a nonparametric model.

The only assumption that we will impose is that $F_0$ is a monotonically increasing function that is bounded between 0 and 1. i.e. the parameter space is

$F_0 \in \Lambda := \{F: \mathbb R \to [0,1],~ F \text{ is increasing}\}.$

The MLE can be found similarly as in the case 1:

$\hat F_n = \argmax_{F \in \Lambda} \sum_{i=1}^n \big( Y_i \log F(Z_i) + (1-Y_i)\log (1-F(Z_i)) \big).$

Suppose $Z_i \sim Q,$ then the $L^2(Q)$-distance between the MLE and $F_0$ can be shown as

\begin{aligned} \|F_n - F_0\|_{2, Q} &= \left\{ \int\big( \hat F_n - F_0 \big)^2 dQ \right\}^{1/2} \\ &= \mathcal{O}_P(n^{-1/3}) \end{aligned}

One can also show that the same rate holds for the Hellinger distance as well.

### (case 3) nonparametric concave model

In addition to the second model, we can restrict the shape of the function further by adding concavity constaint. To be specific, assume that

$F_0 \in \tilde\Lambda := \{F:\mathbb R \to [0,1],~ 0\le\frac{dF}{dz}\le M,~ F \text{ is concave} \}.$

The derivative condition implies that $F$ is increasing no faster than the rate of $M.$ It can be shown later that this model has slightly improved rate of $L^2(Q)$-convergence of $\mathcal{O}_P(n^{-2/5}).$

References

• van de Geer. 2000. Empirical Processes in M-estimation. Cambridge University Press.
• Theory of Statistics II (Fall, 2020) @ Seoul National University, Republic of Korea (instructor: Prof. Jaeyong Lee).

1. Billingsley, 1999, Convergence of Probability Measures, 2nd edition.