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

From |
"Stas Kolenikov" <skolenik@gmail.com> |

To |
statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu |

Subject |
Re: st: STATA: multivariate probit w/ bootstrap |

Date |
Thu, 1 May 2008 09:28:12 -0500 |

On 5/1/08, Stas Kolenikov <skolenik@gmail.com> wrote: > Fixing the seed looks like a very reasonable thing for those > procedures, and it explains the same bootstrap results, too. Ha-ha, how about RTFMing the help file first? There's the -seed- option of -mvprobit- that explicitly allows one to fix the seed for the simulation. So I wonder if the following will do: cap pro drop mymvprobit pro def mymvprobit, eclass local seed = 1e6*uniform() mvprobit <your existing syntax> , seed(`seed') ereturn add end bootstrap, ... : mymvprobit This will keep the random # generator going, but it will allow each bootstrap replication to have fixed seed distinct from the default 123456789. Daniel, what was your original reason that you wanted the bootstrap for -mvprobit-, to begin with? On very rare occasions will the bootstrap-based procedures be worthwhile dealing with if the linearization/sandwich standard errors are available (and they are in -mvprobit-); the two types of standard errors are asymptotically equivalent, both are approximations to the true unknown variances of the parameter estimates, and there is little to no telling which one is better in finite samples (the bootstrap usually is, but here it is confounded with having to reset the seed for each simulation, so there is not only variability due to random resampling, but also due to different seeds for the multinormal probability evaluation). You are mouting a computationally intensive bootstrap on top of iterative maximization; for each iteration, you would probably need a dozen or so evaluations of the likelihood, for the three equation you have; and within each likelihood evaluation, there's a simulation for the multinormal probabilities. You would need hours before you get anything reasonable; you would want to find the optimal number of -draws- (I think the default 5 is ridiculously low, but I have little to no experiece with simulated ML)... and at any rate your -bootstrap, rep(5)- would not give you much. If anything, I would suggest drastically reducing the number of observations to be bootstrapped (say 10% of the data), to speed up each individual -mvprobit-; I would expect Stata to take care of the necessary square root corrections for the standard errors. And if you also have some sort of cluster structure (if say you sampled your settlements, and then sampled individuals within those), then forget about the bootstrap, it is almost impossible to do it right in this situation, and be content with -mvprobit, cluster()- standard errors. You really won't be able to improve upon those. -- Stas Kolenikov, also found at http://stas.kolenikov.name Small print: Please do not reply to my Gmail address as I don't check it regularly. * * 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/

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: st: STATA: multivariate probit w/ bootstrap***From:*"Daniel R. Petrolia" <Petrolia@agecon.msstate.edu>

**References**:**Re: st: STATA: multivariate probit w/ bootstrap***From:*"Stas Kolenikov" <skolenik@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Can you get BETA coefficients for XTMIXED models?** - Next by Date:
**Re: st: STATA: multivariate probit w/ bootstrap** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: STATA: multivariate probit w/ bootstrap** - Next by thread:
**Re: st: STATA: multivariate probit w/ bootstrap** - Index(es):

© Copyright 1996–2016 StataCorp LP | Terms of use | Privacy | Contact us | What's new | Site index |