Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose we have a likelihood function, $L(\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3};X_{1},X_{2})$ where $\theta_{1}...\theta_{3}$ are sets of parameters and $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$ are data. The model is fully identified, but computational difficulties make it nearly impossible to maximize this function over $\theta_{1},$ $\theta_{2},$ and $\theta_{3}$ simultaneously, because the liklihood function is time-consuming to compute and can only be computed with error. So with too many dimensions it takes any appropirate algorithm a very long time to converge. However, we can restrict the model to estimate just some of the parameters consistently. More specifically, we can generate likelihood functions $L_{1}(\theta_{1};X_{1})$ and $L_{2}(\theta_{2};X_{2})$ to estimate $\theta_{1}$ and $\theta_{2}$ consistently. If doing so gives us estimates $\hat{\theta_{1}}$ and $\hat{\theta_{2}},$ then maximizing $L(\hat{\theta_{1}},\hat{\theta_{2}},\theta_{3};X_{1},X_{2})$ gives a consistent--if inefficient--estimate of $\theta_{3}$, which is not subject to the computational difficulties.

My question concerns the standard errors for $\hat{\theta_{3}}$, or confidence intervals obtained via, say, the liklihood ratio test. Is it appropriate to uses the usual methods for obtaining standard errors in this case, or should I do something different to account for the odd way in which I obtained my estimate? If I do things the usual way, I should use approximations and/or evaluations involving the function $L(\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3};X_{1},X_{2})$ and not $L(\hat{\theta_{1}},\hat{\theta_{2}},\theta_{3};X_{1},X_{2})$, right?

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.