[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

From |
"Wiji Arulampalam" <Wiji.Arulampalam@warwick.ac.uk> |

To |
<statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu>, <wguan@stata.com> |

Subject |
Re: st: Random effects probit |

Date |
Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:02:16 +0100 |

I am really confused now. I am dealing with models which have many variables . The models are estimated using very large datasets. This is the first time I had used xtprobit with lagged dependent variable (LDV) as a regressor. When I didn't get any std. errors for rho or ln(sig2) but got proper std. errors for the other coefficient estimates and when these coefficient estimates were the same as the ordinary probit, I automatically assumed that there was no unobserved heterogeneity! Note, this problem only occurs when I have an LDV. But my conclusions were obviously wrong - this I found out when I checked it on Limdep. In the past I have always used Limdep for RE probit and I have had no problems at all. The only reason I used xtprobit was because of the size of the data set and model and I thought that it would be easier given that my data was stored as a stata file. It seems a bit too much to ask us to try different starting values to check for sensitivity of the results when one is estimating a very large model using a lot of data. How is one supposed to decide whether the fact that the program gave the same answer as the ordinary probit was because of unstable optimisation or whether it was because of no unobserved heterogeneity? How would I discriminate between these two? many thanks best wiji ================================= Professor Wiji Arulampalam, Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. Tel: +44 (24) 7652 3471 Sec. Tel: +44 (24) 7652 3202 Fax: +44 (24) 7652 3032 email: wiji.arulampalam@warwick.ac.uk http://www.warwick.ac.uk/Economics/arulampalam/ RES2003: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/res2003/ >>> wguan@stata.com 09/17/02 08:44PM >>> In the recent conversation about the results from -xtprobit-, Wiji Arulampalam <Wiji.Arulampalam@warwick.ac.uk> and others queried how -xtprobit- obtains its starting values. As James Hardin <jhardin@stat.tamu.edu> nicely explained, [...] > In this model, the starting value for "rho" can determine whether or not the optimization concludes successfully. Unfortunately, the grid search method used in -xtprobit- does not seem adequate for this particular problem. Since layering a non-linear optimization method on top of an approximation often brings difficulties in the estimation process, the importance of starting values is not too surprising. Still, we have been looking into other methods of optimization and quadrature techniques. With difficult data, e.g., when the quadrature check indicates unstable results, it may be possible to obtain better estimates by re-estimating the model using a one-dimensional grid of starting values. The starting values are constructed by augmenting the converged cross-sectional -probit- results with a grid of values for "rho". The optimization is then performed in a loop. Afterwards, if the largest log-likelihood from the converged results has a full rank estimated VCE, then we have a candidate solution that should be checked by -quadchk-. Here we implement this approach via a -forvalues- loop: ----------------------------Begin do-file----------------------------------- qui probit sue lague mat b = e(b) forvalues rho = 0.1(0.1).9 { local lnsig2u = ln(`rho'/(1-`rho')) mat b1 = b, `lnsig2u' di di as res "rho = " `rho' _c qui xtprobit sue lague, i(ind1) quad(20) from(b1, copy) di as txt _skip(10) "Log likelihood = " as res %8.0g e(ll) di as txt "coef." as res _col(15) %8.0g _b[lague] /* */ _col(30) %8.0g [sue]_cons _col(45) %8.0g [lnsig2u]_cons /* */ _col(60) %8.0g e(rho) di as txt "std. err." as res _col(15) %8.0g _se[lague] /* */ _col(30) %8.0g [sue]_se[_cons] /* */ _col(45) %8.0g [lnsig2u]_se[_cons] } ----------------------------End do-file------------------------------------- Since this is only an example, we want to make the output shorter. We achieve this by only displaying the estimated coefficients, their standard errors and the log-likelihood. In other implementations, it might be better to display all the output, but this is a matter of preference. Note that an estimated standard error of 0 indicates results with than full rank estimated VCE. The results from the above method are: lague _cons lnsig2u rho rho = .1 Log likelihood = -321.537 coef. .978465 -2.62413 .094874 .523701 std. err. .257994 .269102 .46741 rho = .2 Log likelihood = -324.476 coef. 1.50498 -2.1291 -1.44237 .191179 std. err. .179505 .065135 0 rho = .3 Log likelihood = -323.981 coef. 1.44582 -2.16482 -1.24305 .223905 std. err. .182259 .067259 0 rho = .4 Log likelihood = -323.855 coef. 1.4304 -2.17465 -1.1936 .232617 std. err. .182962 .067849 0 rho = .5 Log likelihood = -321.537 coef. .978465 -2.62413 .094874 .523701 std. err. .257992 .269095 .467398 rho = .6 Log likelihood = -321.537 coef. .978465 -2.62413 .094874 .523701 std. err. .257994 .269102 .46741 rho = .7 Log likelihood = -326.897 coef. 1.76802 -1.99957 -2.78606 .058082 std. err. .165957 .057566 0 rho = .8 Log likelihood = -325.316 coef. 1.60022 -2.0773 -1.80932 .140721 std. err. .174846 .062075 0 rho = .9 Log likelihood = -338.513 coef. .894369 -6.26237 3.17317 .959812 std. err. .194 0 .042211 The output shows that when the starting values for rho are 0.1, 0.5 or 0.6, the optimization converges with 20 quadrature points and the estimated VCE is of full rank. Since the solutions with the starting values for rho of 0.1, 0.5 and 0.6 are the same, the results from -quadchk- will also be the same. Choosing the solution produced by the starting values with rho=0.6, we can check the stability of the quadrature. . qui probit sue lague . mat b = e(b) . local rho = .6 . local lnsig2u = ln(`rho'/(1-`rho')) . mat b1 = b, `lnsig2u' . xtprobit sue lague, i(ind) quad(20) from(b1, copy) nolog Random-effects probit Number of obs = 2411 Group variable (i) : ind1 Number of groups = 500 Random effects u_i ~ Gaussian Obs per group: min = 1 avg = 4.8 max = 7 Wald chi2(1) = 14.38 Log likelihood = -321.53746 Prob > chi2 = 0.0001 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sue | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- lague | .9784651 .2579944 3.79 0.000 .4728054 1.484125 _cons | -2.624126 .2691015 -9.75 0.000 -3.151556 -2.096697 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- /lnsig2u | .0948743 .4674101 -.8212327 1.010981 -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- sigma_u | 1.04858 .2450585 .6632413 1.657799 rho | .5237008 .11659 .305502 .7332122 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ . quadchk, noout Refitting model quad() = 16 Refitting model quad() = 24 Quadrature check Fitted Comparison Comparison quadrature quadrature quadrature 20 points 16 points 24 points ----------------------------------------------------- Log -321.53746 -321.54191 -321.535 likelihood -.00444993 .00245667 Difference .00001384 -7.640e-06 Relative difference ----------------------------------------------------- sue: .97846512 .9789156 .97752771 lague .00045048 -.00093741 Difference .00046039 -.00095804 Relative difference ----------------------------------------------------- sue: -2.6241262 -2.6226448 -2.6260355 _cons .00148137 -.00190931 Difference -.00056452 .0007276 Relative difference ----------------------------------------------------- lnsig2u: .0948743 .09345529 .09850014 _cons -.00141901 .00362584 Difference -.01495678 .03821729 Relative difference ----------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, the relative differences for lnsig2u:_cons appear to be too large to safely interpret them. At this point, we could either repeat our method with a different number of quadrature points or conclude that we cannot obtain interpretable results from this combination of model and data. Weihua Guan <wguan@stata.com> David M. Drukker <ddrukker@stata.com> * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/ * * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

- Prev by Date:
**st: RE: RE: Senstitivity** - Next by Date:
**st: query RE probit** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Random effects probit** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: Random effects probit** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2017 StataCorp LLC | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |