Skip to main content
Log in

Robust Bayesian seemingly unrelated regression model

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Computational Statistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A robust Bayesian model for seemingly unrelated regression is proposed. By using heavy-tailed distributions for the likelihood, robustness in the response variable is attained. In addition, this robust procedure is combined with a diagnostic approach to identify observations that are far from the bulk of the data in the multivariate space spanned by all variables. The most distant observations are downweighted to reduce the effect of leverage points. The resulting robust Bayesian model can be interpreted as a heteroscedastic seemingly unrelated regression model. Robust Bayesian estimates are obtained by a Markov Chain Monte Carlo approach. Complications by using a heavy-tailed error distribution are resolved efficiently by representing these distributions as a scale mixture of normal distributions. Monte Carlo simulation experiments confirm that the proposed model outperforms its traditional Bayesian counterpart when the data are contaminated in the response and/or the input variables. The method is demonstrated on a real dataset.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agostinelli C, Greco L (2013) A weighted strategy to handle likelihood uncertainty in Bayesian inference. Comput Stat 28:319–339

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ando T (2011) Bayesian variable selection for the seemingly unrelated regression models with a large number of predictors. J Jpn Stat Soc 41:187–203

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ando T, Zellner A (2010) Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of the seemingly unrelated regression and simultaneous equations models using a combination of direct Monte Carlo and importance sampling techniques. Bayesian Anal 5:65–95

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Andrade JAA, O’Hagan A (2006) Bayesian robustness modeling using regularly varying distributions. Bayesian Anal 1:169–188

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Arslan O (2010) An alternative multivariate skew Laplace distribution: properties and estimation. Stat Pap 51:865–887

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bayarri M, Morales J (2003) Bayesian measures of surprise for outlier detection. J Stat Plan Inference 111:3–22

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit DF, Van Aelst S, Van den Poel D (2015) Outlier-robust Bayesian multinomial choice modeling. J Appl Econ 31:1445–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger J (1994) An overview of robust Bayesian analysis (with discussion). Test 3:5–124

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Billio M, Casarin R, Rossini L (2016) Bayesian nonparametric sparse seemingly unrelated regression model (SUR). Working Papers 2016:20, Department of Economics, University of Venice “Ca’ Foscari”

  • Bilodeau M, Duchesne P (2000) Robust estimation of the SUR model. Can J Stat 28:277–288

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chib S, Greenberg E (1995) Hierarchical analysis of sur models with extensions to correlated serial errors and time-varying parameter models. J Econ 68:339–360

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Choi HM, Hobert JP (2013) Analysis of MCMC algorithms for Bayesian linear regression with Laplace errors. J Multivar Anal 117:32–40

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Farcomeni A, Greco L (2015) Robust methods for data reduction. Chapman & Hall-CRC, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • García-Escudero L, Gordaliza A, Matrán C, Mayo-Iscar A (2011) Exploring the number of groups in robust model-based clustering. Stat Comput 21:585–599

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern H, Dunson D, Vehtari A, Rubin D (2015) Bayesian data analysis, 3rd edn. Chapman & Hall-CRC, Boca Raton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Geweke J (1993) Bayesian treatment of the independent student-t linear model. Appl Econ 8:19–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco L, Racugno W, Ventura L (2008) Robust likelihood functions in Bayesian inference. J Stat Plan Inference 138:1258–1270

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Grunfeld Y (1958) The Determinants of Corporate Investment. PhD thesis, Department of Economics, University of Chicago

  • Hubert M, Rousseeuw PJ, Van Aelst S (2008) High-breakdown robust multivariate methods. Stat Sci 23:92–119

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Koenker R, Portnoy S (1990) M-estimation of multivariate regressions. J Am Stat Assoc 85:1060–1068

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kotz S, Kozubowski T, Podgorski K (2001) The Laplace distribution and generalizations: a revisit with applications to communications, economics, engineering, and finance. Springer, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lavine M (1991) Sensitivity in Bayesian statistics: the prior and the likelihood. J Am Stat Assoc 86:396–399

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lavine M (1994) An approach to evaluating sensitivity in Bayesian regression analyses. J Stat Plan Inference 40:233–244

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Maronna RA, Martin DR, Yohai VJ (2006) Robust statistics: theory and methods. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Ng VM (2002) Robust Bayesian inference for seemingly unrelated regressions with elliptical errors. J Multivar Anal 83:409–414

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peña D, Zamar R, Yan G (2009) Bayesian likelihood robustness in linear models. J Stat Plan Inference 139:2196–2207

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Peremans K, Van Aelst S (2018) Robust inference for seemingly unrelated regression models. J Multivar Anal 167:212–224

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sivaganesan S (1993) Robust Bayesian diagnostics. J Stat Plan Inference 35:171–188

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Train K (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Verzilli CJ, Stallard N, Whittaker JC (2005) Bayesian modelling of multivariate quantitative traits using seemingly unrelated regressions. Genet Epidemiol 28:313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson J, Holmes C (2016) Approximate models and robust decisions. Stat Sci 31:465–489

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zellner A (1962) An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 57:348–368

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zellner A (1996) An introduction to Bayesian inference in econometrics. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zellner A, Ando T (2010a) Bayesian and non-Bayesian analysis of the seemingly unrelated regression model with student-t errors, and its application for forecasting. Int J Forecast 26:413–434. Special Issue: Bayesian Forecasting in Economics

  • Zellner A, Ando T (2010b) A direct Monte Carlo approach for Bayesian analysis of the seemingly unrelated regression model. J Econ 159:33–45

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dries F. Benoit.

Additional information

This work was carried out using the Stevin Supercomputer Infrastructure at Ghent University, funded by Ghent University, the Hercules Foundation and the Flemish Government. The research of Stefan Van Aelst was supported by Project C16/15/068 of Internal Funds KU Leuven, CRoNoS COST Action IC1408, and IAP research network Grant Nr. P6/03 of the Belgian government (Belgian Science Policy)

Appendix

Appendix

Theorem 1

We follow the lines of the proof of Theorem 2 in Peña et al. (2009). This means that we have to show that the weighted observations \(z_i^\star \) are bounded which implies that the Kullback–Leibler divergence is bounded as well. Let Z denote the original dataset. After rearrangement of the observations, Z can be split into \(Z=\left( {\begin{matrix} Z_1 \\ Z_2 \end{matrix}}\right) \). \(Z_1\) contains the \(\lceil (1-\alpha ) n \rceil \) observations that remain uncontaminated in \(Z_\alpha \), while \(Z_2\) contains the remaining \([\alpha n]\) observations that are replaced by outliers in \(Z_\alpha \). The contaminated data \(Z_\alpha \) can similarly be split into \(Z_\alpha =\left( {\begin{matrix} Z_1 \\ Z_{2,\alpha } \end{matrix}}\right) \). Moreover, denote \(Z_\alpha ^\star = W\,Z_\alpha \) with \(W=\text {diag}(\omega _{1},\ldots ,\omega _{N})\) and \(\omega _{i}=\omega (d_i)\) with \(d_i=d_i(Z_\alpha )\) given by (7).

We first show that the constant a which is the \((1-\alpha )\) quantile of the distances \(d_{i}\) is bounded. Since \(\alpha <1/2\) and the coordinate-wise median T and the scatter matrix C both have breakdown point 1/2 under the conditions of the theorem, there exist bounds \(B_T(Z_1)\) and \(B_l(Z_1)\) such that \(\Vert T(Z_\alpha )\Vert \le B_T(Z_1)\Vert <\infty \) and \( 0<B_l(Z_1) \le \lambda _{\min }(C(Z_\alpha ))\le \lambda _{\max }(C(Z_\alpha )) \le B_u(Z_1) < \infty \) where \(\lambda _{\min }(C(Z_\alpha ))\) and \(\lambda _{\max }(C(Z_\alpha ))\) are the smallest/largest eigenvalue of \(C(Z_\alpha )\). For every \(z_{\alpha ,i}\) in \(Z_\alpha \) it then follows that

$$\begin{aligned} \Vert z_{\alpha ,i}-T(Z_\alpha )\Vert / \sqrt{B_u(Z_1)} \le d_i \le \Vert z_{\alpha ,i}-T(Z_\alpha )\Vert / \sqrt{B_l(Z_1)} \end{aligned}$$

For observations \(z_{\alpha ,i}\) in \(Z_1\), we have that \(z_{\alpha ,i}=z_i\) and the corresponding distances \(d_i\) have a finite lower and upper bound that only depends on \(Z_1\). This implies immediately that the \((1-\alpha )\) quantile of the distances \(d_{i}\) in \(Z_\alpha \) is bounded (and positive) whatever the outliers are.

Now, consider \(z_i^\star = \omega _{i}z_{\alpha ,i}\). If \(d_i > a \), then we have that

$$\begin{aligned} d_i^\star&= \sqrt{(z_i^\star -T)^T C^{-1} (z_i^\star -T)}\\&\le \sqrt{(z_i^\star -\omega _{i}T)^T C^{-1} (z_i^\star -\omega _{i}T)}+(1-\omega _{i})\sqrt{T^TC^{-1}T}\\&\le d_i(1+d_i^2-a^2)^{-1/2} + \Vert T\Vert /\sqrt{B_l(Z_1)}\\&\le \max (1,a)+B_T(Z_1)/\sqrt{B_l(Z_1)}, \end{aligned}$$

which is bounded. If \(d_i \le a \), then \(\omega _{i}=1\) and thus \(d_i^\star = d_i \le a\). Hence, \(d_i^\star \) has a finite upper bound for all observations in \(Z_\alpha \) and thus also \(\Vert z_i^\star \Vert \) has a finite upper bound for the transformed observations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mbah, C., Peremans, K., Van Aelst, S. et al. Robust Bayesian seemingly unrelated regression model. Comput Stat 34, 1135–1157 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-018-0854-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-018-0854-3

Keywords

Navigation