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

From |
rgutierrez@stata.com (Roberto G. Gutierrez, StataCorp LP) |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: xtmelogit vs. gllamm |

Date |
Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:26:19 -0500 |

Klaus Haberkern <haberkern@soziologie.unizh.ch> asks: > concerning STATA 10. Is it possible 1) to run > Multilevel-logistic-Regressions with 4 (or more) levels, 2) if so, does it > reduce computing time substantially (compared to gllamm), e.g. minutes or > hours instead of days or weeks? Yes, you can use -xtmelogit- on models with 4 or more levels. Speed comparisons of -xtmelogit- with -gllamm- are very problem specific, but I can offer some general guidelines. In general you will find -xtmelogit- to be significantly faster than -gllamm- in situations where 1. Top-level (largest) panels are large, say, 20 or more observations per largest panel. and/or 2. The total dimension of the random effects at all levels is large, say 4 or greater. For example, if you have a three-level model with a random intercept and one random slope at each level, the total random-effects dimension is 3*2 = 6. Computations become slower as the random-effects dimension described in 2. increases. This is the curse of dimensionality due to having to estimate high-dimensional integrals via Guassian quadrature. The quadrature calculations in -xtmelogit- tend to scale better than those in -gllamm- as this dimension increases. As such, in complex models computation times that are 25 to 30 times faster (if not more) when using -xtmelogit- are not uncommon. -xtmelogit- also allows for estimation via a Laplacian approximation. While not as accurate as Guassian quadrature, the Laplacian approximation has the advantage of not suffering from the curse of dimensionality. Computation times with Laplace tend to only increase quadratically (as opposed to exponentially) with model complexity. While the final answer is not as accurate as that obtained with quadrature, we have found the Laplacian approximation to be quite reasonable in many problems. --Bobby rgutierrez@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/

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: RE: Question on xthtaylor** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: Stata10 SE and do files editor** - Previous by thread:
**st: xtmelogit vs. gllamm** - Next by thread:
**st: RE: out-of-sample predictions with GLM** - Index(es):

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