Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 19

Position Papers of the 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Maximum Simulated Likelihood: Don’t Stop ’Til You Get Enough?

, , ,

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2019F354

Citation: Position Papers of the 2019 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 19, pages 7982 ()

Full text

Abstract. Maximum simulated likelihood estimation can be employed in empirical health economics, amongst others, to tackle issues concerning endogenous treatment effects. While theory suggests that maximum simulated likelihood estimation is asymptotically consistent, efficient and equivalent to the maximum likelihood estimator when both the number of simulation draws S and sample size N → ∞ and √N/S → 0 there is no guidance on how large of an S to choose and even theory suggests to experiment. This piece of research reviews strategies of health economists that aim at dealing with this issue. Most pieces of applied research rely on experimentation until numerical stability is achieved, while some employ Monte-Carlo techniques to justify their choice of S. A more formal test was suggested, but seemed not to be employed yet. This lack of guidance induces a research problem that needs to be properly addressed.


  1. P. Deb and P. K. Trivedi. “Specification and simulated likelihood estimation of a non–normal treatmentoutcome model with selection: Application to health care utilization”. In: The Econometrics Journal 9.2 (2006), pp. 307–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2006.00187.x.
  2. D. Shane and P. K. Trivedi. “What drives differences in health care demand? The role of health insurance and selection bias”. In: Health, Econometrics and Data Group Working Papers 12/09 (2012).
  3. C. Gouriéroux and A. Monfort. Simulation-based econometric methods. Oxford University Press, 1997. DOI : 10.1093/0198774753.001.0001.
  4. W. H. Greene. Econometric analysis. 6. ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008.
  5. A. Cameron and P. K. Trivedi. Microeconometrics using Stata. Rev. ed. A Stata Press publication. College Station, Tex.: Stata Press, 2010.
  6. A. Cameron and P. K. Trivedi. Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  7. P. Deb and P. K. Trivedi. “Maximum simulated likelihood estimation of a negative binomial regression model with multinomial endogenous treatment”. In: Stata Journal 6.2 (2006), pp. 246–255.
  8. D. M. Drukker and R. Gates. “Generating Halton sequences using Mata”. In: Stata Journal 6.2 (2006), 214–228(15).
  9. D. M. Drukker. “Maximum simulated likelihood: Introduction to a special issue”. In: Stata Journal 6.2 (2006), 153–155(3).
  10. K. E. Train. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. DOI : 10.1017/CBO9780511805271.
  11. M. M. Garrido, P. Deb, J. F. Burgess, and J. D. Penrod. “Choosing models for health care cost analyses: issues of nonlinearity and endogeneity”. In: Health services research 47.6 (2012), pp. 2377–2397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01414.x.
  12. P. Deb, C. Li, P. K. Trivedi, and D. M. Zimmer. “The effect of managed care on use of health care services: results from two contemporaneous household surveys”. In: Health economics 15.7 (2006), pp. 743–760. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.1096.
  13. V. Atella and P. Deb. “Are primary care physicians, public and private sector specialists substitutes or complements? Evidence from a simultaneous equations model for count data”. In: Journal of health economics 27.3 (2008), pp. 770–785. DOI : 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.10.006.
  14. M. Bratti and A. Miranda. “Endogenous treatment effects for count data models with endogenous participation or sample selection”. In: Health economics 20.9 (2011), pp. 1090–1109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.1764.
  15. A. Geraci, D. Fabbri, and C. Monfardini. “Testing exogeneity of multinomial regressors in count data models: Does two-stage residual inclusion work?” In: Journal of Econometric Methods 7.1 (2018), p. 313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jem-2014-0019.
  16. M. K. Munkin and P. K. Trivedi. “Simulated maximum likelihood estimation of multivariate mixed–Poisson regression models, with application”. In: The Econometrics Journal 2.1 (1999), pp. 29–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1368-423X.00019.
  17. V. Atella and A. Holly. “Disentangling adverse selection, moral hazard and supply induced demand: An empirical analysis of the demand for healthcare services”. In: SSRN Electronic Journal (2016). DOI : 10.2139/ssrn.2801679.
  18. C. R. Bhat, C. Varin, and N. Ferdous. “A comparison of the maximum simulated likelihood and composite marginal likelihood estimation approaches in the context of the multivariate ordered-response model”. In: Maximum simulated likelihood methods and applications. Ed. by R. C. Hill and W. H. Greene. Vol. 26. Advances in Econometrics. Bingley, UK: Emerald, 2010, pp. 65–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0731-9053(2010)0000026007.
  19. V. A. Hajivassiliou. “Some practical issues in maximum simulated likelihood”. In: Simulation-based Inference in Econometrics. Ed. by R. Mariano, T. Schuermann, and M. J. Weeks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 71–99.
  20. P. Contoyannis, A. M. Jones, and N. Rice. “Simulation-based inference in dynamic panel probit models: An application to health”. In: Empirical Economics 29.1 (2004), pp. 49–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00181-003-0189-x.
  21. M. B. Buntin, C. H. Colla, P. Deb, N. Sood, and J. J. Escarce. “Medicare spending and outcomes after postacute care for stroke and hip fracture”. In: Medical care 48.9 (2010), pp. 776–784. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MLR. 0b013e3181e359df.
  22. A. Finkelstein et al. The Oregon health insurance experiment: Evidence from the first year. Cambridge, MA, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w17190.