Standard and Novel Model Selection Criteria in the Pairwise Likelihood Estimation of a Mixture Model for Ordinal Data

被引:5
|
作者
Ranalli, Monia [1 ,2 ]
Rocci, Roberto [3 ]
机构
[1] Penn State Univ, Dept Stat, State Coll, PA 16801 USA
[2] Sapienza Univ Rome, Rome, Italy
[3] Univ Tor Vergata, Dept Econ & Finance, Rome, Italy
来源
ANALYSIS OF LARGE AND COMPLEX DATA | 2016年
关键词
INFORMATION CRITERIA; EM ALGORITHM; NUMBER; PARAMETERS; CLUSTERS; RATIO;
D O I
10.1007/978-3-319-25226-1_5
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
The model selection in a mixture setting was extensively studied in literature in order to assess the number of components. There exist different classes of criteria; we focus on those penalizing the log-likelihood with a penalty term, that accounts for model complexity. However, a full likelihood is not always computationally feasible. To overcome this issue, the likelihood is replaced with a surrogate objective function. Thus, a question arises naturally: how the use of a surrogate objective function affects the definition of model selection criteria? The model selection and the model estimation are distinct issues. Even if it is not possible to establish a cause and effect relationship between them, they are linked to each other by the likelihood. In both cases, we need to approximate the likelihood; to this purpose, it is computationally efficient to use the same surrogate function. The aim of this paper is not to provide an exhaustive survey of model selection, but to show the main used criteria in a standard mixture setting and how they can be adapted to a non-standard context. In the last decade two criteria based on the observed composite likelihood were introduced. Here, we propose some new extensions of the standard criteria based on the expected complete log-likelihood to the non-standard context of a pairwise likelihood approach. The main advantage is a less demanding and more stable estimation. Finally, a simulation study is conducted to test and compare the performances of the proposed criteria with those existing in literature. As discussed in detail in Sect. 7, the novel criteria work very well in all scenarios considered.
引用
收藏
页码:53 / 68
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] MODEL SELECTION FOR GAUSSIAN MIXTURE MODELS
    Huang, Tao
    Peng, Heng
    Zhang, Kun
    STATISTICA SINICA, 2017, 27 (01) : 147 - 169
  • [32] A penalized estimation for the Cox model with ordinal multinomial covariates
    Yue, Chao
    Xuejun, Ma
    Yaguang, Li
    Lei, Huang
    JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL COMPUTATION AND SIMULATION, 2022, 92 (06) : 1194 - 1223
  • [33] Maximum likelihood estimation under a finite mixture of generalized exponential distributions based on censored data
    Ateya, Saieed F.
    STATISTICAL PAPERS, 2014, 55 (02) : 311 - 325
  • [34] Hypothesis Testing for Mixture Model Selection
    Punzo, Antonio
    Browne, Ryan P.
    McNicholas, Paul D.
    JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL COMPUTATION AND SIMULATION, 2016, 86 (14) : 2797 - 2818
  • [35] The Impact of Various Class-Distinction Features on Model Selection in the Mixture Rasch Model
    Choi, In-Hee
    Paek, Insu
    Cho, Sun-Joo
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION, 2017, 85 (03) : 411 - 424
  • [36] Mixture Model Estimation with Soft Labels
    Come, Etienne
    Oukhellou, Latifa
    Denoeux, Thierry
    Aknin, Patrice
    SOFT METHODS FOR HANDLING VARIABILITY AND IMPRECISION, 2008, 48 : 165 - +
  • [37] On the Disagreement of Forecasting Model Selection Criteria
    Spiliotis, Evangelos
    Petropoulos, Fotios
    Assimakopoulos, Vassilios
    FORECASTING, 2023, 5 (02): : 487 - 498
  • [38] Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the Fractional Vasicek Model
    Tanaka, Katsuto
    Xiao, Weilin
    Yu, Jun
    ECONOMETRICS, 2020, 8 (03) : 1 - 28
  • [39] Maximum likelihood estimation of the DDRCINAR(p) model
    Liu, Xiufang
    Wang, Dehui
    Deng, Dianliang
    Cheng, Jianhua
    Lu, Feilong
    COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-THEORY AND METHODS, 2021, 50 (24) : 6231 - 6255
  • [40] Likelihood-free estimation of model evidence
    Didelot, Xavier
    Everitt, Richard G.
    Johansen, Adam M.
    Lawson, Daniel J.
    BAYESIAN ANALYSIS, 2011, 6 (01): : 49 - 76