Open Access
June 2013 Multiple-Shrinkage Multinomial Probit Models with Applications to Simulating Geographies in Public Use Data
Lane F. Burgette, Jerome P. Reiter
Bayesian Anal. 8(2): 453-478 (June 2013). DOI: 10.1214/13-BA816

Abstract

Multinomial outcomes with many levels can be challenging to model. Information typically accrues slowly with increasing sample size, yet the parameter space expands rapidly with additional covariates. Shrinking all regression parameters towards zero, as often done in models of continuous or binary response variables, is unsatisfactory, since setting parameters equal to zero in multinomial models does not necessarily imply “no effect.” We propose an approach to modeling multinomial outcomes with many levels based on a Bayesian multinomial probit (MNP) model and a multiple shrinkage prior distribution for the regression parameters. The prior distribution encourages the MNP regression parameters to shrink toward a number of learned locations, thereby substantially reducing the dimension of the parameter space. Using simulated data, we compare the predictive performance of this model against two other recently-proposed methods for big multinomial models. The results suggest that the fully Bayesian, multiple shrinkage approach can outperform these other methods. We apply the multiple shrinkage MNP to simulating replacement values for areal identifiers, e.g., census tract indicators, in order to protect data confidentiality in public use datasets.

Citation

Download Citation

Lane F. Burgette. Jerome P. Reiter. "Multiple-Shrinkage Multinomial Probit Models with Applications to Simulating Geographies in Public Use Data." Bayesian Anal. 8 (2) 453 - 478, June 2013. https://doi.org/10.1214/13-BA816

Information

Published: June 2013
First available in Project Euclid: 24 May 2013

zbMATH: 1329.62117
MathSciNet: MR3066949
Digital Object Identifier: 10.1214/13-BA816

Keywords: Confidentiality , Dirichlet process , Disclosure , spatial , synthetic

Rights: Copyright © 2013 International Society for Bayesian Analysis

Vol.8 • No. 2 • June 2013
Back to Top