In analysis of categorical data, we often use logistic regression to estimate relationships between binomial outcomes and one or more covariates.
I understand this is a type of generalized linear model (GLM). In R, this is implemented with the glm
function using the argument family=binomial
. On the other hand, in categorical data analysis are multinomial models. Are these not GLMs? And can't they be estimated in R using the glm
function?
(In this post for Multinomial Logistic Regression. The author uses an external package mlogit
, which seems also outdated)
Why is the class of GLMs restricted to dichotomous outcomes? Is it because multi-class classification can be treated as multiple binary classification models?
1.5 Multinomial Logistic Regression Model. MLogit regression is a generalized linear model used to estimate the probabilities for the m categories of a qualitative dependent variable Y, using a set of explanatory variables X: where βk is the row vector of regression coefficients of X for the kth category of Y.
GLM models allow us to build a linear relationship between the response and predictors, even though their underlying relationship is not linear. This is made possible by using a link function, which links the response variable to a linear model.
The term "general" linear model (GLM) usually refers to conventional linear regression models for a continuous response variable given continuous and/or categorical predictors. It includes multiple linear regression, as well as ANOVA and ANCOVA (with fixed effects only).
In R, logistic regression is performed using the glm( ) function, for general linear model. This function can fit several regression models, and the syntax specifies the request for a logistic regression model.
The GLMs in R are estimated with Fisher Scoring. Two approaches to multi-category logit come to mind: proportional odds models and log-linear models or multinomial regression.
The proportional odds model is a special type of cumulative link model and is implemented in the MASS
package. It is not estimated with Fisher scoring, so the default glm.fit
work-horse would not be able to estimate such a model. Interestingly, however, cumulative link models are GLMs and were discussed in the eponymous text by McCullogh and Nelder. A similar issue is found with negative binomial GLMs: they are GLMs in the strict sense of a link function, and a probability model, but require specialized estimation routines. As far as the R function glm
, one should not look at it as an exhaustive estimator for every type of GLM.
nnet
has an implementation of a loglinear model estimator. It is conformed to their more sophisticated neural net estimator using soft-max entropy, which is an equivalent formulation (theory is there to show this). It turns out you can estimate log-linear models with glm
in default R if you're keen. The key lies in seeing the link between logistic and poisson regression. Recognizing the interaction terms of a count model (difference in log relative rates) as a first order term in a logistic model for an outcome (log odds ratio), you can estimate the same parameters and the same SEs by "conditioning" on the margins of the $K \times 2$ contingency table for a multi-category outcome. A related SE question on that background is here
Take as an example the following using the VA lung cancer data from the MASS package:
> summary(multinom(cell ~ factor(treat), data=VA)) # weights: 12 (6 variable) initial value 189.922327 iter 10 value 182.240520 final value 182.240516 converged Call: multinom(formula = cell ~ factor(treat), data = VA) Coefficients: (Intercept) factor(treat)2 2 6.931413e-01 -0.7985009 3 -5.108233e-01 0.4054654 4 -9.538147e-06 -0.5108138 Std. Errors: (Intercept) factor(treat)2 2 0.3162274 0.4533822 3 0.4216358 0.5322897 4 0.3651485 0.5163978 Residual Deviance: 364.481 AIC: 376.481
Compared to:
> VA.tab <- table(VA[, c('cell', 'treat')]) > summary(glm(Freq ~ cell * treat, data=VA.tab, family=poisson)) Call: glm(formula = Freq ~ cell * treat, family = poisson, data = VA.tab) Deviance Residuals: [1] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 2.708e+00 2.582e-01 10.488 <2e-16 *** cell2 6.931e-01 3.162e-01 2.192 0.0284 * cell3 -5.108e-01 4.216e-01 -1.212 0.2257 cell4 -1.571e-15 3.651e-01 0.000 1.0000 treat2 2.877e-01 3.416e-01 0.842 0.3996 cell2:treat2 -7.985e-01 4.534e-01 -1.761 0.0782 . cell3:treat2 4.055e-01 5.323e-01 0.762 0.4462 cell4:treat2 -5.108e-01 5.164e-01 -0.989 0.3226 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 (Dispersion parameter for poisson family taken to be 1) Null deviance: 1.5371e+01 on 7 degrees of freedom Residual deviance: 4.4409e-15 on 0 degrees of freedom AIC: 53.066 Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 3
Compare the interaction parameters and the main levels for treat in the one model to the second. Compare also the intercept. The AICs are different because the loglinear model is a probability model for even the margins of the table which are conditioned upon by other parameters in the model, but in terms of prediction and inference these two approaches yield identical results.
So in short, trick question! glm
handles multi-category logistic regression, it just takes a greater understanding of what constitutes such models.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With