跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要中的因子模型来自项目反应理论与心理测量,未涉及宏观共同因子或金融因子,故不据因子一词归类。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
Xiao-Li Meng
Stephen Schilling

全信息项目因子模型的拟合与桥接抽样的实证考察

研究问题
全信息项目因子模型在高维情况下如何减少固定节点求积的数值误差,并可靠计算用于监测算法收敛的似然比?
方法与思路
作者以 Gibbs 抽样实现两种 Monte Carlo EM 的 E 步,并用桥接抽样估计似然比,同时比较桥接抽样与重要性抽样。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,高维因子载荷恢复优于原拟合算法,桥接抽样在相同模拟规模下可大幅降低误差,并提供两类实际数据应用。
阅读关注点
应核对两种 EM 实现的差别、抽样链与收敛监测、桥接密度的选择,以及误差比较和载荷恢复实验的具体配置。
阅读边界
仅据 OpenAlex 索引摘要,稿件版本未注明;摘要未给出维度、计算预算和误差数值,不能将桥接抽样的优势普遍化。

原文摘要

Based on item response theory, Bock and Aitken introduced a method of item factor analysis, termed full-information item factor (FIIF) analysis by Bartholomew because it uses all distinct item response vectors as data. But a limitation of their fitting algorithm is its reliance on fixed-point Gauss—Hermite quadrature, which can produce appreciable numerical errors, especially in high-dimension problems. The first purpose of this article is to offer more reliable methods by using recent advances in statistical computation. Specifically, we illustrate two ways of implementing Monte Carlo Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm to fit a FIIF model, using the Gibbs sampler to carry out the computation for the E steps. We also show how to use bridge sampling to simulate the likelihood ratios for monitoring the convergence of a Monte Carlo EM, a strategy that is useful in general. Simulations demonstrate substantial improvement over Bock and Aitken's algorithm in recovering known factor loadings in high dimensions. To test our methods, we also apply them to data from LSAT and from a survey on quality of American life, and compare the results to those from the fixed-point approach. Using the FIIF model as a working example, the second purpose of this article is to provide an empirical investigation of the theoretical development of Meng and Wong on bridge sampling, an efficient method for computing normalizing constants. In contrast to importance sampling, which uses draws from one density, bridge sampling uses draws from two (or more) densities and then introduces intermediate densities to “bridge” them. Our empirical investigation confirms the results of Meng and Wong and echoes the empirical evidences documented in computational physics; that is, bridge sampling can reduce simulation errors by orders of magnitude when compared to importance sampling with the same simulation sizes.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文