Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2012 / iii / Paper 37 / 6

The moment-based approach specifies marginal means, variances, and within-student covariances, without supplying a joint probability distribution for each count profile. It is a quasi-likelihood or generalized estimating equation strategy. The parameter interpreted as a structural-zero fraction is not automatically an actual probability of a structural-zero component merely because it appears in the moment formulas. A valid positive-definite working covariance and parameter identifiability must also be checked.

The printed covariance specification is not admissible for all the stated parameter values. For example, take $\pi =1/2$, $\tau =1$, and all three component means equal to 10. It gives diagonal variance 80 and off-diagonal covariance 100, so $\mathrm{Var}(Y_{i1}-Y_{i2})=80+80-2(100)=-40$. A covariance matrix cannot have a negative variance in any direction. Thus the moment approach requires additional admissibility restrictions or a valid working covariance; the parameter ranges alone do not define a valid model. This does not alter the hierarchical model, whose covariance derived below is positive semidefinite.

The alternative gives a full hierarchical mixture distribution, specifically a shared zero-inflated Gamma-Poisson count model: a common student random effect is zero with probability $\pi$, and otherwise has a Gamma distribution with mean 1 and variance $\tau$. Conditional on this effect, the three counts are independent Poisson random variables. Integrating it out induces both excess zeros and positive within-student dependence. Zero inflation is shared for the whole student, rather than independently reselected in each term. This full distribution supports likelihood-based inference but is more sensitive to the distributional assumptions.

The marginal mean in the hierarchical model has the same form as the proposed moment mean. Its marginal covariance does not, in general, equal the printed working covariance; the law of total covariance calculation below makes the distinction explicit. At $\tau =0$ the Gamma component is interpreted as its point-mass-at-one limit. At $\pi =1$ all counts are zero, and the log-mean parameterization and regression effects are not identifiable.

For the moment approach, write $m_i=\mathbb{E}{Y}_i$ and let $V_i$ be a positive-definite working covariance constructed from the proposed moment formulas. For identifiable mean coefficients $\theta$, let $D_i=\partial m_i/\partial {\theta }^T$. Generalized estimating equations take the formAcross independent students, correct mean specification and standard regularity conditions give consistent identifiable mean coefficients even if the working covariance is wrong. Sandwich covariance matrix standard errors useResidual second-moment estimating equations can estimate identifiable dispersion and association parameters. The marginal mean only identifies ${\gamma }_0={\beta }_0+\log (1-\pi )$, not ${\beta }_0$ and $\pi$ separately. Moment restrictions beyond the mean would be needed to separate them; as shown below, the printed restrictions do not generally recover the intended latent parameters.

For the hierarchical approach, maximize the observed-data likelihood after integrating out the random effect. Set ${\mu }_{ij}=e^{{\beta }_0+{\beta }^T{x}_i+{\alpha }_j}$, $r=1/\tau$, $M_i={\sum }_j{\mu }_{ij}$ and $s_i={\sum }_j{y}_{ij}$. The joint likelihood contribution isThe integral comes from multiplying three conditional Poisson mass functions by the Gamma density and integrating $b_i^{r+s_i-1}{e}^{-(r+M_i)b_i}$ over $b_i>0$. Independent students give $\ell ={\sum }_i\log L_i$. Direct numerical maximum likelihood or an expectation-maximization algorithm can be used; in an EM algorithm an all-zero profile has an uncertain latent component membership. Information-based likelihood standard errors apply under regular interior conditions, with special care for parameter boundaries.

With ${\alpha }_1=0$, the marginal moment model givesThus $e^{{\alpha }_2}$ and $e^{{\alpha }_3}$ are ratios of expected visits in Lent and Easter to expected visits in Michaelmas, respectively, at the same baseline covariates. These are population mean ratios, including students with no propensity to attend; they are not odds ratios or probabilities of any attendance.

In the hierarchical model, for a fixed positive student effect $b_i$, the conditional mean ratio is also $e^{{\alpha }_j}$. It describes a multiplicative within-student change in expected visits holding the student effect fixed. For the structural-zero component all three means are zero, so no nonzero ratio is defined there. Since the distribution of $b_i$ and the mixture weight do not vary by term, integrating out $b_i$ preserves this same marginal mean ratio. This is mean-ratio preservation under a multiplicative random effect: the conditional and marginal term coefficients coincide for this multiplicative log-link model. They need not coincide in a general nonlinear mixed model, such as a logistic random-effect model. A log-mean difference ${\alpha }_j$ is not a difference of expected logarithms of counts, which can be undefined at zero.

Keep baseline covariates fixed and put $q=1-\pi$, ${\mu }_j=e^{{\beta }_0+{\beta }^T{x}_i+{\alpha }_j}$, and $r=1/\tau$ for $\tau >0$. Integration of a Poisson count over the Gamma component givesThis negative binomial distribution has mean ${\mu }_j$ and variance ${\mu }_j+\tau {\mu }_j^2$. Therefore the unconditional one-term distribution is the zero-inflated negative binomial distributionIn particular its zero probability is $\pi +q(1+\tau {\mu }_j{)}^{-1/\tau }$, not simply $\pi$. As $\tau \downarrow 0$ this becomes a Zero-inflated Poisson distribution.

The mixing effect has $\mathbb{E}{b}_i=q$, $\mathbb{E}{b}_i^2=q(1+\tau )$ and $\mathrm{Var}(b_i)=q(\tau +\pi )$. The law of total variance and law of total covariance now giveEquivalently, for $\mu =({\mu }_1,{\mu }_2,{\mu }_3{)}^T$, $\mathbb{E}{Y}_i=q\mu$ and $\mathrm{Cov}(Y_i)=\mathrm{diag}(q\mu )+q(\tau +\pi )\mu {\mu }^T$. This also supplies raw second moments by adding $(\mathbb{E}{Y}_i)(\mathbb{E}{Y}_i{)}^T$. Dependence arises from both shared heterogeneity and shared structural zeros, even when the positive random effect is constant.

The printed moment variance matches the hierarchical variance at the same parameter values, but its printed off-diagonal covariance is $\tau {\mu }_j{\mu }_k$. Equality would require $\tau =q(\tau +\pi )$, or $\pi (\tau -q)=0$. It is therefore false to claim that the two approaches consistently estimate all the same parameters in general.

The precise distinction is between consistency of mean ratios and identification of structural parameters. In the hierarchical model, with $m_j=q{\mu }_j$, both the quadratic variance coefficient and the covariance coefficient in terms of the marginal mean areFor the moment parameterization, writing its parameters as ${\pi }_Q,{\tau }_Q,q_Q=1-{\pi }_Q$, these coefficients are $A_Q=({\pi }_Q+{\tau }_Q)/q_Q$ and $B_Q={\tau }_Q/q_Q^2$. Its intercept is identifiable from the mean only as ${\gamma }_{0Q}={\beta }_{0Q}+\log q_Q$. Matching the true first two moments demands $A_Q=B_Q=\kappa$. One solution always isFor $\kappa >1$ there is also a solution $q_Q=1/\kappa$, ${\pi }_Q=1-1/\kappa$, ${\tau }_Q=1/\kappa$, with the corresponding shifted intercept. Indeed eliminating ${\tau }_Q$ gives ${\pi }_Q({\tau }_Q-q_Q)=0$. This is moment aliasing in a shared zero-inflated count model: matching the moments does not identify the actual structural-zero probability.

For a concrete counterexample take $\pi =0.2,\tau =0.3$. Then $q=0.8$ and $\kappa =0.625$. The only admissible moment-matching choice is ${\pi }_Q=0,{\tau }_Q=0.625$, with an intercept shifted by $\log 0.8$; it cannot recover the true structural-zero proportion 0.2. Correct marginal means can give consistent term and baseline-covariate slopes with sandwich standard errors; they do not justify consistent estimation of the intended $\pi ,\tau$, or latent intercept. Nor does a mean-only estimating equation identify $\pi$ at all. Full-distribution inference provides information beyond these first two moments.

The likelihood-ratio statistic isThe null hypothesis $\pi =0$ is at the boundary of the permitted mixture weights. Assuming the remaining parameters are identifiable and interior, including $\tau >0$, an efficient normalized score for $\pi$ is asymptotically $Z\sim N(0,1)$ under the null hypothesis. The locally unconstrained quadratic log-likelihood maximizer is proportional to $Z$, while the constrained maximizer truncates it at zero. Thus $G^2\Rightarrow (\max (0,Z){)}^2$, giving the one-sided boundary likelihood-ratio limitHere ${\delta }_0$ is a point mass at zero. For a positive observed statistic the upper-tail probability is half the ordinary ${\chi }_1^2$ upper tail. The 5% critical value is the 90th percentile of ${\chi }_1^2$, about 2.7055, displayed as 2.71. Hence the reported likelihoods give a very marginal rejection of $\pi =0$ at 5%, with $p\simeq 0.04955$.

Using the ordinary 95th-percentile cutoff 3.84 would be inappropriate for this one-sided boundary test. The conclusion is close enough to the threshold that likelihood rounding matters: since each log-likelihood is printed to two decimals, the unrounded statistic can differ from 2.72 by nearly 0.02. The intended calculation rejects using the reported values, but an exact decision from the fitted data requires unrounded likelihoods. If the nuisance dispersion is also on its boundary or the mixture is not identifiable, the stated half-and-half null distribution needs reconsideration.