Empirical and simulated adjustments of composite likelihood ratio statistics

Composite likelihood inference has gained much popularity thanks to its computational manageability and its theoretical properties. Unfortunately, performing composite likelihood ratio tests is inconvenient because of their awkward asymptotic distribution. There are many proposals for adjusting composite likelihood ratio tests in order to recover an asymptotic chi-square distribution, but they all depend on the sensitivity and variability matrices. The same is true for Wald-type and score-type counterparts. In realistic applications, sensitivity and variability matrices usually need to be estimated, but there are no comparisons of the performance of composite likelihood-based statistics in such an instance. A comparison of the accuracy of inference based on the statistics considering two methods typically employed for estimation of sensitivity and variability matrices, namely an empirical method that exploits independent observations, and Monte Carlo simulation, is performed. The results in two examples involving the pairwise likelihood show that a very large number of independent observations should be available in order to obtain accurate coverages using empirical estimation, while limited simulation from the full model provides accurate results regardless of the availability of independent observations. This suggests the latter as a default choice, whenever simulation from the model is possible.

[1]  N. Hjort,et al.  Topics in Spatial Statistics [with Discussion, Comments and Rejoinder] , 2008 .

[2]  Harry Joe,et al.  Composite Likelihood Methods , 2012 .

[3]  C. Varin.  On composite marginal likelihoods , 2008 .

[4]  Carlo Gaetan,et al.  Comparing composite likelihood methods based on pairs for spatial Gaussian random fields , 2013, Stat. Comput..

[5]  F. E. Satterthwaite.  An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. , 1946, Biometrics.

[6]  N. Reid,et al.  On the robustness of maximum composite likelihood estimate , 2011 .

[7]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  Models for Discrete Longitudinal Data , 2005 .

[8]  Luigi Pace,et al.  ADJUSTING COMPOSITE LIKELIHOOD RATIO STATISTICS , 2009 .

[9]  Geert Molenberghs,et al.  A pairwise likelihood approach to estimation in multilevel probit models , 2004, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[10]  Cristiano Varin,et al.  Hybrid Pairwise Likelihood Analysis of Animal Behavior Experiments , 2013, Biometrics.

[11]  Alfred V. Aho,et al.  The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms , 1974 .

[12]  N. Reid,et al.  AN OVERVIEW OF COMPOSITE LIKELIHOOD METHODS , 2011 .

[13]  Satterthwaite Fe.  An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. , 1946 .

[14]  Richard E. Chandler,et al.  Inference for clustered data using the independence loglikelihood , 2007 .

[15]  H. Omre,et al.  Topics in spatial statistics. Discussion and comments , 1994 .

[16]  J. C. van Houwelingen,et al.  Logistic Regression for Correlated Binary Data , 1994 .

[17]  Jean-Michel Marin,et al.  Approximate Bayesian computational methods , 2011, Statistics and Computing.

[18]  N. Jewell,et al.  Hypothesis testing of regression parameters in semiparametric generalized linear models for cluster correlated data , 1990 .