Going off of the standard set up, we have $N$ observations and $P$ predictors stored in the data matrix $\mathbf{X} = \{ x_{i,j} \}$ for $i = 1, \ldots, N$ and $j = 1, \ldots, P$. The response is given by the vector $\mathbf{y} = (y_1, \ldots, y_n)$. The coefficients are given by $\beta_0$ (the intercept) and $\boldsymbol{\beta} = (\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_P)$.
In the case of using regularization (here the lasso) for linear regression, we have to minimize $$ Q(\beta_0, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = \frac{1}{2N} \| \mathbf{y} - \beta_0 \mathbf{1}- \mathbf{X} \boldsymbol{\beta} \|_2^2 + \lambda \| \boldsymbol{\beta} \|_1. $$
However, in the literature, it is almost always the case that both $\mathbf{X}$ and $\mathbf{y}$ have been centered, so $\beta_0$ can be removed from the model. That is, $$ Q(\beta_0, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = \frac{1}{2N} \| \mathbf{y} - \mathbf{X} \boldsymbol{\beta} \|_2^2 + \lambda \| \boldsymbol{\beta} \|_1. $$
$\beta_0$ is then estimated as $$ \hat{\beta}_0 = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N y_i. $$
However, Tibshirani (1996) says (on page 23) that for logistic regression, "we can no longer eliminate the intercept by centering the response."
The lasso for logistic regression minimizes $$ Q(\beta_0, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \Big[ \log \left(1 + e^{\beta_0 + \boldsymbol{x}_i^T \boldsymbol{\beta}} \right) - y_i \big(\beta_0 + \boldsymbol{x}_i^T \boldsymbol{\beta} \big)\Big] + \| \boldsymbol{\beta} \|_1, $$ the regularized negative log-likelihood.
How is the intercept estimated in this setting?
EDIT
This question is too vague, so as an attempt to elaborate, I would like to know:
- Since we are not imposing a penalty on $\beta_0$, will $\hat{\beta}_0^{lasso}$ be the same as $\hat{\beta}_0^{log}$?
- If so, is there some special way this $\beta_0$ is chosen like for linear regression?
- If not, how does the $\hat{\beta}_0$ change because of regularization?