The name is absent



20

For reasons of identifiability we fix the variance of the normal kernels in (2.4). We
recommend σ∣ = 1 and
σ% = 4. See the argument below.

For later reference we state the joint probability model. Let z = (¾ : i =
1,... ,n,j —
1,..., J) denote the data. Let fa denote the prior distribution for βg.
Assume that μjg for j = 1,..., J and g = 1,..., G are a priori independent, that for
each
j, given the imputed hyperparameter φj, μj1,..., μ3c is a random sample from
fμ(∙φβ and that φi,... ,φj ~ fφ. Let β=1,... ,βj) denote all probit regression
coefficients, and similarly for
μ, r, v, w and φ. Let N(xm, s) indicate a normal pdf
with mean
m and variance s evaluated at x. The joint distribution of z and all the
model parameters is

p(z, v, r, β, μ, w, φ) =

ΠΓ=ι Π∫=1Φ¾j < vH < θzij+ιj] ∏Γ=ι ∏∫=ι M⅝' I xT⅛ + ri + Mj,wy> σ∣)

× ∏iι∕⅛(∕3j)∏r=ιWdO,σr2)

× ∏ix {n^pTWi3=9}9⅛r1} nil {fM ∏iιΛ⅛ I ⅛)}

(2.9)

To show that the cutpoints 07∙⅛ in (2.2) can be fixed, consider the following
simplified version of the right side in (2.4). Let
υ ~ ∑G=1pgN(μg2) and define
π⅛
≡ Pr(z = k) = Pr{θk < V < 0fc+ι), к = 0,1,..., к. We show by a constructive
argument that an appropriate choice of (G,
pgg,g — 1,..., G) can approximate an
arbitrary set of desired cell probabilities (πθ,πj,...
,π*κ). In particular, the parallel
regression assumptions of the probit model is not required. A similar argument was
used in Kottas
et al. (2005) for infinite Dirichlet process mixtures of normal distribu-
tions. Consider a mixture of normal distributions with
G ≥ K components. Place one
component of the mixture into each interval [0fc, 0fc+ι) by choosing
μk ∣(0fc + 0⅛+ι)>
and set p⅛ = 7Γ⅛. Specify
σ such that 1 — e of the probabilities of each kernel is be-
tween the adjacent cutpoints. This trivially achieves ∣π⅛ — π⅛∣ < 
e for к = 0,1,..., К.
Therefore, the cutpoints θjk in (2.2) can be fixed without loss of generality.

We recommend as a default choice of cutpoint parameters 0⅛: Θq — —∞, θκ+ι =



More intriguing information

1. Valuing Access to our Public Lands: A Unique Public Good Pricing Experiment
2. WP 36 - Women's Preferences or Delineated Policies? The development or part-time work in the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom
3. Artificial neural networks as models of stimulus control*
4. Place of Work and Place of Residence: Informal Hiring Networks and Labor Market Outcomes
5. SOME ISSUES IN LAND TENURE, OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL IN DISPERSED VS. CONCENTRATED AGRICULTURE
6. An Interview with Thomas J. Sargent
7. Performance - Complexity Comparison of Receivers for a LTE MIMO–OFDM System
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. The mental map of Dutch entrepreneurs. Changes in the subjective rating of locations in the Netherlands, 1983-1993-2003