2004
DOI: 10.1111/j.1368-423x.2004.00125.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating marginal likelihoods for mixture and Markov switching models using bridge sampling techniques*

Abstract: This paper discusses the problem of estimating marginal likelihoods for mixture and Markov switching model. Estimation is based on the method of bridge sampling (Meng and Wong 1996; Statistica Sinica 11, 552-86.) where Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) draws from the posterior density are combined with an i.i.d. sample from an importance density. The importance density is constructed in an unsupervised manner from the MCMC draws using a mixture of complete data posteriors. Whereas the importance sampling estima… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
179
0
2

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 178 publications
(181 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
179
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…As in Frühwirth-Schnatter (2004), we consider the example of the posterior distribution on (µ, σ) associated with the normal mixture…”
Section: ·2 a Mixture Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in Frühwirth-Schnatter (2004), we consider the example of the posterior distribution on (µ, σ) associated with the normal mixture…”
Section: ·2 a Mixture Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most of the methodological literature focusses on models with constant probabilities of Markov switching, including the seminal paper by Hamilton (1989), as well as the subsequent contributions by Chauvet (1998), Kim and Nelson (1999), Frühwirth-Schnatter (2004), Sims and Zha (2006), Sims et al (2008) and Hubrich and Tetlow (2015).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…permutations of the parameter vector result to the same likelihood. In case of non-identifiable mixture components, an extra effort should be provided, in order to take into account the underlying symmetry of the posterior distribution (Neal, 1999;Frühwirth-Schnatter, 2004). This does not apply in our setup, that is, no "label switching" (see, e.g., Jasra et al, 2005) takes place.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%