Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
st: Re: st: 回复： st: error report with ml check
From
Maarten Buis <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
st: Re: st: 回复： st: error report with ml check
Date
Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:48:19 +0200
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:18 PM, �张 <[email protected]> wrote:
>The likelihood evaluator I wrote is like this:
> program mybiprobit2_lf
> version 9.1
> args lnf xb zc rho
> quietly replace `lnf' = ln(binormal( `xb',`zc', `rho')) if $ML_y1 == 1
> quietly replace `lnf' = ln(binormal(-(`xb',`zc', `rho'))) if $ML_y1 == 0
> end
> This code is simply mimicing the code for probit case. The probit case is like this
> program myprobit_lf
> version 9.1
> args lnf xb
> quietly replace `lnf' = ln(normal( `xb')) if $ML_y1 == 1
> quietly replace `lnf' = ln(normal(-`xb')) if $ML_y1 == 0
> end
>
> Therefore, I dont quite understand why the negative sign should be removed.
That is for many reasons not the correct generalization of the probit
likelihood to the biprobit likelihood. You can see a correct
implementation of the likelihood function by typing in Stata
-viewsource bipp_lf.ado-.
Hope this helps,
Maarten
--------------------------
Maarten L. Buis
Institut fuer Soziologie
Universitaet Tuebingen
Wilhelmstrasse 36
72074 Tuebingen
Germany
http://www.maartenbuis.nl
--------------------------
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/