Grouped Heterogeneous Mixture Modeling for Clustered Data Shonosuke Sugasawa arxiv:1804.00888v1 [stat.me] 3 Apr 2018 Center of Spatial Information Science, The University of Tokyo Abstract Clustered data which has a grouping structure (e.g. postal area, school, individual, species) appears in a variety of scientific fields. The goal of statistical analysis of clustered data is modeling the response as a function of covariates while accounting for heterogeneity among clusters. For this purpose, we consider estimating clusterwise conditional distributions by mixtures of latent conditional distributions common to all the clusters with cluster-wise different mixing proportions. For modeling the mixing proportions, we propose a structure that clusters are divided into finite number of groups and mixing proportions are assumed to be the same within the same group. The proposed model is interpretable and the maximum likelihood estimator is easy to compute via the generalized EM algorithm. In the setting where the cluster sizes grows with, but much more slowly than, the number of clusters, some asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood estimator are presented. Furthermore, we propose an information criterion for selecting two tuning parameters, number of groups and latent conditional distributions. Numerical studies demonstrate that the proposed model outperforms some other existing methods. Key words: Clustered data; EM algorithm; Maximum likelihood; Mixture of regressions 1
1 Introduction Clustered data which has a grouping structure (e.g. postal area, school, individual, species) appears in a variety of scientific fields. The goal of statistical analysis of clustered data is modeling the response as a function of covariates while accounting for heterogeneity among clusters. The standard approach for analyzing clustered data is using mixed models or random effect models (e.g. Demidenko, 2013; Jiang, 2007). However, since this approach essentially aims at modeling conditional means in each cluster, it would not be plausible when the data distribution is skewed or multimodal. As an alternative modeling strategy, the finite mixture model (McLachlan and Peel, 2000) has been extensively applied for its flexibility to capture distributional relationship between response and covariates. For independent (non-clustered) data, the mixture model with covariates was originally proposed in Jacobs et al. (1991), known as mixture-of-experts, and a large body of literature has been concerned with flexible modeling of the conditional distribution of non-clustered data, e.g. Jordan and Jacobs (1994); Geweke and Keane (2007); Chung and Dunson (2009); Villani et al. (2009, 2012); Nguyen and McLachlan (2016). However, these methods cannot be directly imported into the context of analyzing clustered data. One possible direct adaptation of these mixture models into modeling cluster-wise conditional distributions is to apply the models to the whole dataset without taking account of cluster information (we call global mixture modeling), which produces a result that all the estimated cluster-wise distributions are the same. Nevertheless, such result would be inappropriate and the relationship between response and covariates might be misunderstood. Another possible adaptation is fitting the mixture models separately to each cluster (we call local mixture modeling), so that the cluster-wise heterogeneity would be addressed. However, since it is often the case that cluster sizes are not large in practice, the estimation might be unstable. For modeling cluster-wise conditional distributions, Rubin and Wu (1997) and Ng and McLachlan (2014) proposed a mixture model of random effects models, but it would be computationally burdensome since the estimation of a single random effects 2
model is still presents a major challenge for the non-normal responses (e.g. Hui et al., 2017b). Moreover, the result from mixture of mixed models would be difficult to interpret. An alternative approach is latent mixture modeling (Sugasawa et al., 2017) that can be regarded as a compromised model of global and local mixture models, in which the cluster-wise conditional distributions are expressed as the following mixture: L f i (y x) = π ik h k (y x; φ k ), i = 1,..., m, (1) k=1 where m is the number of clusters, h k (y x; φ k ) is a latent conditional distribution common to all the clusters, which typically comes from generalized linear model with parameter φ k, and π i = (π i1,..., π il ) is the cluster-wise mixing proportions. In the above model, cluster-wise heterogeneity is captured by the mixing proportions π i, so that the model would be easy to interpret. For modeling π i, Sun et al. (2007) proposed the use of a logistic mixed model while Sugasawa et al. (2017) proposed the use of a Dirichlet distribution. In both models, due to the additional stochastic structure, parameter estimation requires numerically intensive methods such as Markov Chain Monte Carlo or Monte Carlo EM algorithm as used in Sun et al. (2007) and Sugasawa et al. (2017), respectively. Apart from parametric modeling of cluster-wise conditional distributions, Rosen et al. (2000) and Tang and Qu (2016) proposed a mixture modeling based on the generalized estimating equation, but the primary interest in these works is estimation of the component distributions in the mixture by taking account of correlations within clusters. Moreover, in nonparametric Bayesian approach, hierarchical Dirichlet processes (Teh et al., 2006) might have similar philosophy to latent mixture modeling in that both methods assumes sharing mixing components among clusters, and Rodoriguez et al. (2008) is also concerned with modeling cluster-wise conditional distributions in terms of Bayesian nonparametrics. Hence, most of modeling strategies of cluster-wise conditional distributions are computationally intensive or have poor interpretability. In other words, approaches to estimating cluster-wise conditional distributions while accounting for cluster-wise heterogeneity are still limited. 3
The purpose of this paper is to introduce an effective mixture modeling called grouped heterogeneous mixture (GHM) modeling that is easy to fit and interpret. We develop our method in the framework of latent mixture model (1), and introduce a novel structure for the mixing proportions π i that π 1,..., π m can be divided into finite number of groups and π i s within the same groups have the same mixing proportions. Specifically, let g i, i = 1,..., m, be a group membership variable such that g i = 1,..., G, where G is the number of groups, and π g = (π g1,..., π gl ) be unknown mixing proportions in the gth group. Then the proposed structure of π i is π i = π gi. Since we do not know how the clusters are divided into G groups, we treat the group membership variable g i as an unknown variable (parameter), and estimate it based on data. Owing to the simple structure of π i, the likelihood function of the GHM model can be easily obtained, and the maximization of the function can be easily carried out by the generalized EM algorithm (Meng and Rubin, 1993) as will be described in Section 2. Note that the estimation of group membership g i is closely related to k-means algorithm (Forgy, 1965), and the idea of grouping parameters have been recently considered in the context of panel data analysis (e.g. Hahn and Moon, 2010; Bonhomme and Manresa, 2015; Ando and Bai, 2016), but this paper is the first one to use the idea for modeling cluster-wise mixing proportions. Since the number of group membership variable g i grows with the number of clusters, the cluster size should also grow with the number of clusters to consistently estimate g i. Nevertheless, owing to the grouping structure, the model parameters including g i are shown to be consistent under the setting where the cluster size grows considerably more slowly than the number of clusters. Specifically, for n 1 being the minimum cluster size among m clusters, our asymptotic framework is m and m/n ν 1 0 for some ν > 0, which would be met in various applications. The rest of paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce the GHM modeling, describe the generalized EM algorithm, and propose BIC-type information criterion for selecting numbers of latent distributions, L, and groups G. In Section 3, we illustrate the asymptotic properties of the estimator of model parameters. In Section 4, we carry out numerical experiments to demonstrate the performance of the 4
GHM modeling relative to global and local mixture models or random effects models, based on simulated data as well as real-world data. 2 Grouped Heterogeneous Mixture Modeling 2.1 The model Suppose that we have the clustered observations y ij, i = 1,..., m, j = 1,..., n i, with an associated p-dimensional vector of covariates x ij. Let f i (y x) be a density or probability mass function of y ij given x ij, which are assumed to be the same within clusters but different across clusters. Our primary interest is estimating the clusterwise conditional density f i (y x) from the data. To this end, we propose the following grouped heterogeneous mixture (GHM) model: L f i (y x) = π gi kh k (y x; φ k ), i = 1,..., m, (2) k=1 where h k s are latent conditional densities common to all the clusters, g i {1,..., G} denotes group membership variable and φ k is a vector of unknown parameters in the kth latent densities. As mentioned in Section 1, the key notion in the GHM model (2) is to assume that m clusters can be divided into G groups (sub-clusters) and the same mixing proportions (the same conditional density) holds within the same groups. The latent model h k should be specified by the user depending on the type of response variable y ij, and generalized linear models would be a typical choice. For instance, we may use a normal density with mean x t β k and variance σ 2 k when the response takes continuous values, or a Bernoulli distribution with success probability exp(x t β k )/{1 + exp(x t β k )} when the response is binary. We treat the group membership variable g i as an unknown parameter and estimate it based on the data, which means that clusters are adaptively grouped by reflecting information of the data. Moreover, in the GHM model (2), the heterogeneity among clusters can be expressed by the mixing proportions π gi k, so that the GHM model would be flexible yet parsimonious, so that the estimated results would 5
be interpretable. There are three types of unknown parameters in (2), π = {π gk, g = 1,..., G, k = 1,..., L} being the mixing proportions in each group, γ = {g 1,..., g m } being the set of group membership variables, and φ = {φ k, k = 1,..., L} being the structural parameters in the latent densities. 2.2 Parameter estimation via generalized EM algorithm Let Θ = (γ, π, φ) be the set of unknown parameters. We first consider estimating Θ under known numbers of groups G and latent components L. The estimation of G and L will be given in the end of this section. Given the data, the log-likelihood function of Θ is obtained in the following closed form: Q(Θ) = ( n i L ) log π gi kh k (y ij x ij ; φ k ). (3) i=1 j=1 k=1 The maximum likelihood estimator Θ of Θ is defined as the maximizer of Q(Θ). As is often the case in the context of mixture modeling, we develop an iterative method for maximizing Q(Θ) with respect to Θ. Specifically, we use the generalized EM (GEM) algorithm (Meng and Rubin, 1993). To this end, we consider the following hierarchical expression of the model (2): y ij z ij = k h k (y ij x ij ; φ k ), P(z ij = k) = π gi k, (4) where z ij s are latent variables representing the membership of y ij s. Given z ij s, the complete log-likelihood is given by L c (Θ) = n i L I(z ij = k) {log h k (y ij x ij ; φ k ) + log π gi k}. i=1 j=1 k=1 In the E-step, we need to compute expectations of the latent variables z ij s. Under the hierarchical expression (4), the conditional (posterior) probability of z ij = k given 6
observations Y = {y ij, j = 1,..., n i, i = 1,..., m} evaluated at Θ = Θ (r) is given by P(z ij = k Y ; Θ (r) ) w (r) ijk = π (r) g i k h k(y ij x ij ; φ (r) k ) L l=1 π(r) g i l h l(y ij x ij ; φ (r) l ), so that the objective function to be maximized in the M-step is obtained as Q(Θ Θ (r) ) = L n i k=1 i=1 j=1 w (r) ijk log h k(y ij x ij ; φ k ) + i=1 k=1 L n i log π gi k j=1 w (r) ijk (5) Q 1 (φ Θ (r) ) + Q 2 (γ, π Θ (r) ). It is observed that the maximization of Q 1 (φ Θ (r) ) with respect to φ can be divided into L maximization problems and φ 1,..., φ L can be separately updated. On the other hand, maximizing Q 2 (γ, π Θ (r) ) includes discrete optimization of γ on the space {1,..., G} m, which would be slightly complicated. Hence, instead of simultaneously maximizing with respect to γ and π, we first maximize Q 2 (γ (r), π Θ (r) ) with respect to π and we set π (r+1) to the maximizer, and then, maximize Q 2 (γ, π (r+1) Θ (r) ) with respect to γ to get γ (r+1). This updating process guarantees that monotone increasing of the objective function, that is, Q 2 (γ (r), π (r) Θ (r) ) Q 2 (γ (r+1), π (r+1) Θ (r) ). The proposed GEM algorithm is summarized in what follows. GEM algorithm (1) Set the initial values Θ (0) and r = 0. (2) (E-step) Compute the following weights: w (r) ijk = π (r) g i k h k(y ij x ij ; φ (r) k ) L l=1 π(r) g i l h l(y ij x ij ; φ (r) l ). (3) (M-step-1) Solving the following maximization problem and set φ (r+1) k = φ k : { m n i } φ k = argmax w (r) ijk log h k(y ij x ij ; φ k ), k = 1,..., L. i=1 j=1 7
(4) (M-step-2) Update π gk and g i as follows: ( 1 π (r+1) gk = i:g (r) i =g i) n i:g g (r+1) i = argmax g=1,...,g { L n i (r) i =g j=1 k=1 log π (r+1) gk w (r) ijk, g = 1,..., G, k = 1,..., L, n i j=1 } w (r) ijk, i = 1,..., m, (5) If the algorithm has converged, the the algorithm is terminated. Otherwise, set r = r + 1 and go back to Step (2). Note that updating φ k requires maximizing the weighted log-likelihood of kth latent distribution, which can be easily and efficiently carried out as long as the latent density h k is familiar e.g. generalized linear models. Moreover, for updating g i, we simply compute all the values of the objective function for g = 1,..., G and select the maximizer. Therefore, all the M-steps in the GEM algorithm are easy to execute, thereby the GEM algorithm is computationally quite easy to carry out. Finally, for selecting the values of G (number of groups) and L (number of latent components), we adopt the following BIC-type criterion: BIC(G, L) = 2Q( Θ) + log N { ql + G(L 1) + m }, where N = m i=1 n i is the number of whole samples, and q = dim(φ k ). The suitable values of G and L are set to the minimizer of BIC(G, L). 3 Asymptotic Properties We investigates the large-sample properties of the maximum likelihood estimator Θ when the cluster-sizes grow with the number of clusters. Without loss of generality, we suppose that the cluster labels are assigned such that the cluster-size increases with the cluster index, that is, n 1 n 2 n m. Moreover, we assume that m as well as n 1 as considered in literatures (e.g. Vonesh et al., 2002; Hui et al., 2017a) regarding estimation of random effects models. However, we consider 8
asymptotics under the setting m and m/n ν 1 0 for some ν > 0, that is, the cluster-sizes are allowed to grow much more slowly than m, which would be met in various applications. In what follows, we further assume that the number of groups G and the number of latent conditional distributions L are known. Under the setting, we define γ 0 and ψ 0 be the true parameters of γ and ψ = (π, φ). We now present asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood estimator, whose proof is given in Appendix. Theorem 1. Under Assumptions given in Appendix and m and m/n ν 1 0 for some ν > 0, it holds that 1 m i=1 k=1 L ( 1 ) ( πĝi k π 0 gi 0k)2 = O p m (6) mfm ( Θ) 1/2 ( ψ ψ 0 ) N(0, I dim(ψ) ), (7) where F m (Θ) is the Fisher information matrix defined in Appendix. Although the number of cluster-wise mixing proportions π i = π gi k grows at the number of clusters m, (6) shows that they are consistently estimated and the convergence rate depends on m. Moreover, (7) shows that the structural parameters φ in latent distributions and group-wise mixing proportions π whose dimensions are fixed regardless of m and n 1 are m-consistent. 4 Numerical Studies 4.1 Simulation study: continuous response We investigate the finite sample performance of the proposed method together with some existing methods. We consider m = 40 clusters and assume that each cluster i (i = 1,..., m) has the following cluster-wise conditional distribution: f i (y x 1, x 2 ) = π i φ(y; α i0 + α i1 x 1 + α i2 x 2, 1) + (1 π i )φ(y; β i0 + β i1 x 1 + β i2 x 2, (1.5) 2 ), 9
where π i is a mixing proportion and φ( ; a, b) denotes a normal density function with mean a and variance b. We generated x 1 from the uniform distribution on ( 0.2, 0.8) and x 2 from Bernoulli distribution with success probability 0.5. We consider the following two cases of the mixing proportion π i : (A1) π i Beta(2, 1), (A2) π i TP(0.2, 0.5, 0.8), where TP(a 1, a 2, a 3 ) denotes an uniform three-point distribution on a 1, a 2 and a 3. The mixing proportion π i varies across all the clusters in the case (A1) while π i s are divided into three groups and clusters within the same groups have the same mixing proportions in the case (A2). Moreover, we consider the following two cases of the structural parameters Θ i = (α i0, α i1, α i2, β i0, β i1, β i2 ): (B1) α i0 = α i2 = 1, α i1 = 2, β i0 = β i2 = 1, β i1 = 2, (B2) α i0, α i2 N( 1, (0.2) 2 ), β i0, β i2 N(1, (0.2) 2 ), α i1 N(2, (0.2) 2 ), β i1 N( 2, (0.2) 2 ). Note that the structural parameters Θ i in the mixing distributions are the same over all the clusters in the case (B1), but the mixing distributions are different over all the clusters in the case (B2). We consider the following 4 scenarios produced by all the combinations of the cases of π i and Θ i : scenario 1 2 3 4 case (π i ) (A1) (A2) (A1) (A2) case (Θ i ) (B1) (B1) (B2) (B2) From the conditional distribution, we generated n samples in each cluster, and we considered n = 80 and n = 160. For the simulated dataset, we applied the proposed grouped heterogeneous mixture (GHM) model as well as global mixture (GM), local mixture (LM) and random effects (RE) model. In the GHM model, normal regression models are used for latent conditional distributions and the suitable numbers of groups 10
and latent components are selected by BIC among combinations of G {2,..., 8} and L = 2, 3. In the GM and LM models, we consider mixtures of normal regressions and the number of components is selected by BIC from L {1,..., 4}. For the RE model, only a random intercept term is included. For fitting GM, LM and RE, we use the maximum likelihood estimators of model parameters. Based on these methods, we construct an estimator of cluster-wise conditional densities f i (y x 1, x 2 ), and compute the following mean integrated squared errors (MISE): MISE(x 2 ) = 1 m i=1 0.8 0.2 { } 2dydx1 fi (y x 1, x 2 ) f i (y x 1, x 2 ), which is approximated by finite sum over equally-spaced 51 grid points from 5 to 5 for y and from 0.2 to 0.8 for x 1. We repeated simulating a dataset and computing the MISE for 500 times. Since the results of MISE(1) and MISE(0) are quite similar, we only report the boxplots of MISE(1) in Figure 1, which shows that GHM clearly outperforms the other methods in both all the scenarios. It should be noted that LM does not work well in spite of its flexibility in almost all the scenarios. This is because fitting a mixture model based on moderate cluster sizes like n = 80 or n = 160 would be unstable. 4.2 Simulation study: binary response We next investigate the performance when the response is binary. To this end, we consider the following cluster-wise conditional distributions: f i (y x 1, x 2 ) = π i Ber(y; µ 1i (x 1, x 2 )) + (1 π i )Ber(y; µ 2i (x 1, x 2 )), where Ber( ; p) denotes a Bernoulli probability function with success probability p, logit{µ 1i (x 1, x 2 )} = α i0 + α i1 x 1 + α i2 x 2 and logit{µ 2i (x 1, x 2 )} = β i0 + β i1 x 1 + β i2 x 2. The two covariates x 1 and x 2 are generated in the same way as the previous section, and we considered the same four scenarios regarding the settings of the mixing proportions and distributions. Based on the above cluster-wise conditional distribution, 11
4 2 0 2 4 6 scenario 1 (n=80) 4 2 0 2 4 6 scenario 2 (n=80) 4 2 0 2 4 6 scenario 3 (n=80) 4 2 0 2 4 6 scenario 4 (n=80) 6 4 2 0 2 4 scenario 1 (n=160) 6 4 2 0 2 4 scenario 2 (n=160) 6 4 2 0 2 4 scenario 3 (n=160) 6 4 2 0 2 4 scenario 4 (n=160) Figure 1: Boxplots of logarithm of MISE(1) (log-mise) averaged over x 1 in four scenarios with n = 80 (upper) and n = 160 (lower) when response is Gaussian. 12
we generated n = 80 and n = 160 samples in each cluster. For the simulated dataset, we applied the same four methods as considered in Section 4.1. We used a binomial regression as latent or mixing distributions in GHM, GM and LM, and a logistic mixed regression model as RE. Similarly to Section 4.1, we competed the following mean integrated squared errors (MISE): MISE(x 2 ) = 1 m 1 i=1 y=0 0.8 0.2 { } 2dx1 fi (y x 1, x 2 ) f i (y x 1, x 2 ), where the integral is approximated by a finite sum over equally-spaced 51 grid points from 0.2 to 0.8. In Figure 2, we show boxplots of MISE(1) based on 500 replications in four scenarios. We can observe similar results that GHM outperforms the other methods in all the scenarios. 4.3 Butterfly data We consider an application of the proposed method to Butterfly data (Oliver et al., 2006). The dataset is consists of abundance of Butterflies at S = 66 sites in Boulder County Open Space in the years 1999 and 2000. For each site, geographical information (longitude and latitute), habitat characteristics (grassland type and quality) and landscape context (percentage surrounding urbanization) are available, so that we use the information as covariates. Covariate taking continuous values were scaled to have mean 0 and variance 1. By omitting species being presence in smaller than three sites, there were m = 33 species. We let y is be binary outcome representing presence (y is = 1) and absence (y is = 0) of species i in the site s with i = 1,..., m and s = 1,..., S. For the dataset, we applied the following GHM model: L y is π gi kber(logit(α k + x t sβ k )), k=1 where g i {1,..., G}, Ber(p) denotes a Bernoulli distribution with success probability p and x s is a vector of covariates in the site s. The number of group G and latent 13
scenario 1 (n=80) scenario 1 (n=160) 2 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 scenario 2 (n=80) scenario 2 (n=160) 2 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 scenario 3 (n=80) scenario 3 (n=160) 2 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 scenario 4 (n=80) scenario 4 (n=160) 2 1 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 Figure 2: Boxplots of logarithm of MISE(1) (log-mise) averaged over x 1 in four scenarios with n = 80 (upper) and n = 160 (lower) when response is binary. 14
Table 1: Estimates of regression coefficients in L = 3 latent logistic regression models. Latent 1 Latent 2 Latent 3 Intercept -7.57-2.63 35.36 Latitude -2.00-0.50 0.61 Longitude 2.81-0.75 0.27 Percentage of building -0.30-0.07 1.35 Percentage of urban vegetation 0.57 0.23 27.41 Habitat (mixed) -0.69 0.69 1.01 Habitat (short) -13.29-0.05-15.94 Habitat (tall) 5.71-0.01 1.81 Table 2: Estimates of mixing proportions and number of species included in G = 5 groups. Group 1 2 3 4 5 #(species) 4 8 3 9 9 Latent 1 0.88 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.01 Latent 2 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.39 0.94 Latent 3 0.12 0.00 1.00 0.60 0.05 conditional distributions L were selected by BIC-type criterion over G = 2,..., 8 and L = 2, 3, 4, and G = 5 and L = 3 were selected. This means that 33 species can be divided into 5 groups and each group-wise conditional distribution is expressed as a mixture of three logistic regression models. In Table 1, estimates of regression coefficients in latent 3 logistic regression models are reported, which shows that the estimates are quite different over the models. Moreover, in Table 2, estimates of mixing proportions in 5 groups are shown. Although the estimates of mixing proportions are slightly similar in group 2 and group 5, the mixing proportions are entirely very different over groups, and the difference among groups can be represented in the mixing proportions. For comparison of predictive performance, 5 or 10 sites are randomly omitted to act as test data. Then, we applied the four methods, GHM, GM, LM, RE, to the reaming data (training data) to construct a predictive model for the test data. Similarly to Section 4.2, we considered a mixture of logistic regression models for 15
GM and LM, and a logistic random intercept model as RE. The number of mixture components in LM and GM were selected by BIC. To asses the predictive performance, we computed likelihood of the test data (we call test likelihood) based on the estimated model. This procedure was repeated for 100 times, so that such test likelihood are computed for each replication and method. We found that the test likelihood of LM were very small compared with other methods possibly because cluster size (s = 66) is not so large and there are 7 covariate. Moreover, proportions of presence are not small in some species, which may lead to unstable results of fitting a mixture model to each species. For the other methods, we show the test likelihood in each replication in Figure 3. We can observe that the test likelihood of GHM is substantially larger than those of the other methods in almost all the replications, which shows that better prediction performance of GHM than the other methods. 0 20 40 60 80 100 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 #(omitted sites)=5 Replication Test likelihood GHM GM RE 0 20 40 60 80 100 240 220 200 180 160 140 #(omitted sites)=10 Replication Test likelihood GHM GM RE Figure 3: Plots of likelihoods of test data for 100 replications of two cases of number of omitted sites, 5 (left) and 10 (right). 16
5 Final remarks Estimation of cluster-wise conditional distributions is a powerful tool to reveal the distributional relationship between response and covariates while accounting for heterogeneity among clusters. For this purpose, we proposed a novel mixture modeling called grouped heterogeneous mixture (GHM) modeling for estimating luster-wise conditional distributions. The estimation of the GHM model is easily carried our by using the generalized EM algorithm. Under the setting where the cluster size grows with, but considerably slowly than, the number of clusters, we revealed asymptotic properties of the maximum likelihood estimator. In this work, we were not concerned with a problem caused by the dimension of the structural parameters φ in the latent distributions. Such problem is typically related to the number of covariates, and the proposed method might breakdown when the number of covariates are very large. In this case, variable selection or regularization is needed. In the framework of mixture modeling, there are several works concerned with variable selection via regularization (penalization) methods (e.g. Hui et al., 2015; Khalili and Chen, 2007). The adaptation of these methods into our framework would be a valuable future study. Acknowledgements This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers 16H07406. Appendix: Proof of Theorem 1 We require the following regularity conditions: A1. The density (probability) function g(y X; γ, ψ) m ni i=1 j=1 f i(y ij x ij ; g i, ψ) is identifiable in Θ up to the permutation of the component and grouping labels. A2. The Fisher information matrix F m (Θ) = E [ ( ) ( ) ] t log g(y X; γ, ψ) log g(y X; γ, ψ) ψ ψ 17
is finite and positive definite at ψ = ψ 0 and γ = γ 0. A3. There exists an open subset ω of Ω containing true parameters ψ, such that there exists functions M k (x, y), k = 1, 2, 3, with f i (y x; γ, ψ) f i (y x; γ, ψ) < M 1(x, y), log f i (y x; γ, ψ) < M 2s (x, y), ψ s 2 log f i (y x; γ, ψ) < M 3rs (x, y), ψ r ψ s for arbitrary γ and γ. Moreover, E[M 1 (x, y) 2 ] <, E[M 2s (x, y) 2 ] < and E[M 3rs (x, y) 2 ] <. A4. ψ 0 is an interior point in the compact set Ω R dim(ψ). We define a set of neighborhood of ψ 0 as N η = {ψ 0 +ηu; u = 1}, where η is a scalar, u R dim(ψ), and denotes the L 2 -norm. We first show the following lemma. Lemma 1. For any δ > 0 and ψ N η, it holds that 1 m i=1 I(ĝ i (ψ) g i0 ) = o p (n δ 1 ). Proof. From Markov s inequality, it follows that ( ) 1 P I(ĝ i (ψ) g i0 ) > εn δ 1 m i=1 for arbitrary ε > 0 and ψ N η. Note that P ( ĝ i (ψ) gi 0 ) g g 0 i = g g 0 i ( n i P j=1 ( n i P j=1 nδ 1 mε P(ĝ i (ψ) g i0 ) (8) i=1 n i log f i (y ij ; g, ψ) j=1 log f i(y ij ; g, ψ) f i (y ij ; g 0 i, ψ) 0 ). ) log f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ) 18
Moreover, from Markov s inequality, it holds that ( n i P log f i(y ij ; g, ψ) ) { [ ( 1 f j=1 i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ) 0 E exp 2 log f )]} i(y ij ; g, ψ) ni f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ) { [ ]} f i (y ij ; g, ψ) = exp n i log E f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ). Note that 1 f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ) = 1 f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ0 ) + f(y ij; gi 0, ψ ) 3/2 (ψ ψ 0 ) t ψ f i(y ij ; gi 0, ψ) ψ=ψ 1 = f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ0 ) + f(y ij; gi 0, ψ ) 1/2 (ψ ψ 0 ) t ψ log f i(y ij ; gi 0, ψ), ψ=ψ where ψ lies on the line segment joining ψ and ψ 0. Therefore, under Assumption A3, we have [ ] f i (y ij ; g, ψ) f i (y ij ; g, ψ) E f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ) = f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ)f i(y ij ; gi 0, ψ 0 )dy ij [ ( = f i (y ij ; g, ψ)f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ0 )dy ij + (ψ ψ 0 ) t E ψ log f i(y ij ; gi 0, ψ) 1 H(f( ; g, ψ), f( ; g 0 i, ψ 0 )) + Cη, ψ=ψ ) ] f i (y ij ; g, ψ) f(y ij ; gi 0, ψ ) where H(f 0, f 1 ) denotes the Hellinger distance between f 0 and f 1 and C is a constant. Under Assumption A1, inf ψ Nη H(f( ; g, ψ), f( ; gi 0, ψ0 )) > 0 when g gi 0, so that for sufficiently small η, there exist a constant c > 0 such that { } sup log 1 H(f( ; g, ψ), f( ; gi 0, ψ 0 )) + Cη < c. ψ N η Hence, we have ( n i P log f i(y ij ; g, ψ) ) f i (y ij ; gi 0, ψ) 0 exp( cn i ) = o(n δ 1 ), j=1 thereby the right side of (8) is o(1), which completes the proof. 19
We next show the consistency of Θ as given in the following lemma: Lemma 2. As m and n 1, it holds that Θ Θ 0. Proof. Define u R dim(ψ) such that u = 1 and γ s = (g 1s,..., g ms ) {1,..., G} m such that d(γ s, γ 0 ) m i=1 I(g is g0 i ) = s. Further, we define R(ψ, γ) 1 N R i (ψ, g i ) = 1 N Q(Θ). i=1 Note that R(ψ 0 + ηu, γ s) R(ψ 0, γ 0 ) = R(ψ 0 + ηu, γ 0 ) R(ψ 0, γ 0 ) + R(ψ 0 + ηu, γ s) R(ψ 0 + ηu, γ 0 ) = I 1 + I 2. Under Assumption A2 and A3, using the similar argument given in the proof of Theorem 1 in Hui et al. (2015), it holds that I 1 = o(η). Regarding I 2, it is noted that I 2 1 N = 1 N R i (ψ 0 + ηu, g is ) R i(ψ 0 + ηu, gi 0 ) i=1 I(g is g0 i ) R i (ψ 0 + ηu, g is ) R i(ψ 0 + ηu, gi 0 ) sc, i=1 for some C > 0. Therefore, for any ε, there exists a local maximum inside the set {ψ 0 + ηu; u = 1} {γ ; d(γ, γ 0 ) < s}, so that the consistency follows. We define the following objective functions: Q(ψ) = ( n i L ) log πĝi (ψ)kh k (y ij x ij ; φ k ). i=1 j=1 k=1 Q(ψ) = ( n i L ) log π g 0 i k h k(y ij x ij ; φ k ), i=1 j=1 k=1 and we define ψ and ψ as the maximizer of Q(ψ) and Q(ψ), respectively. Note that 20
mfm ( ψ) 1/2 ( ψ ψ 0 ) N(0, I dim(ψ) ). Note that, from Lemma 1, it holds that sup Q(ψ) Q(ψ) = o p (n δ 1 ). (9) ψ N η Then, from the definition of ψ and ψ, we have 0 Q( ψ) Q( ψ) = { Q( ψ) Q( ψ)} + { Q( ψ) Q( ψ)} { Q( ψ) Q( ψ)} + { Q( ψ) Q( ψ)} = o p (n δ 1 ), where the last equality follows from (9) and ψ, ψ N η for large n i since ψ and ψ are consistent. from (9), so that ψ ψ = o p (n δ 1 ). Hence, it follows that m( ψ ψ 0 ) = m( ψ ψ 0 ) + m( ψ ψ) = m( ψ ψ 0 ) + o p ( mn δ 1 ) = m( ψ ψ 0 ) + o p (1) under m/n ν 0 for some ν > 0, which establishes (7). Moreover, from Lemma 1 and the asymptotic property of ψ, it holds that 1 m 1 m i=1 k=1 i=1 k=1 L ( πĝi k π g 0 i k )2 = o p (n δ 1 ), 1 m L ( 1 ( π g 0 i k π0 gi 0k)2 = O p m ), i=1 k=1 L ( π g 0 i k π gi 0k)2 = o p (n δ 1 ) thereby (6) follows under m/n ν 0. References Ando, T. and Bai, J. (2016). Panel data models with grouped factor structure under unknown group membership. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 31, 163 191. Bonhomme, S. and Manresa, E. (2015). Grouped pattern of heterogeneity in panel data. Econometrica, 83, 1147 1184. 21
Chung, Y. and Dunson, D. B. (2009). Nonparametric Bayes conditional distribution modeling with variable selection. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104, 1646 1660. Demidenko, E. (2013). Mixed Models: Theory and Applications with R, Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, New York, Wiley. Forgy, E. W. (1965). Cluster analysis of multivariate data: efficiency vs. interpretability of classifications. Biometrics, 21, 768 769. Geweke, J. and Keane, M. (2007). Smoothly mixing regressions. Journal of Econometrics, 138, 252 290. Khalili, A. and Chen, J. (2007). Variable selection in finite mixture of regression models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102, 1025 1038. Hahn, J. And Moon, H. (2010). Panel data models with finite number of multiple equilibria. Econometric Theory, 26, 863 881. Hui, F. K. C., Muller, S. and Welsh, A. H. (2017). Joint selection in mixed models using regularized PQL. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112, 1323 1333. Hui, F. K. C., Warton, D. I. and Foster, A. D. (2015). Multi-species distribution modeling using penalized mixture of regressions. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 9, 866 882. Hui, F. K. C., Warton, D. I., Ormerod, J. T., Haapaniemi, V. and Taskinen, S. (2017). Variational approximations for generalized linear latent variable models. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 26, 35 43. Jacobs, R. A., Jordan, M. I., Nowlan, S. J. and Hinton, G. E. (1991). Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Computation, 3, 79 87. Jiang, J. (2007). Linear and generalized linear mixed models and their applications, Springer Series in Statistics, New York, Springer. 22
Jordan, M. I. and Jacobs, R. A. (1994). Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the EM algorithm. Neural Computation, 214, 181 214. McLachlan, G. J. and Peel, D. (2000). Finite Mixture Models, New York, Wiley. Meng, X. L. and Rubin, D. B. (1993). Maximum likelihood estimation via the ECM algorithm: a general framework. Biometrika, 80, 267 278. Ng, S. K. and McLachlan, G. J. (2007). Extension of mixture-of-experts networks for binary classification of hierarchical data. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 41, 57 67. Ng, S. K. and McLachlan, G. J. (2014). Mixture models for clustering multilevel growth trajectories. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 71, 43 51. Nguyen, H. D. and McLachlan, G. J. (2016). Laplace mixture of linear experts. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 93, 177 191. Oliver, J. C., Prudic, K. L. and Collinge, S. K. (2006). Boulder county open space butterfly diversity and abundance. Ecology, 87, 1066. Rodriguez, A., Dunson, D. B. and Gelfand, A. E. (2008). The nested Dirichlet process. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 1131 1154. Rosen, O., Jiang, W. and Tanner, M. A. (2000). Mixtures of marginal models. Biometrika, 87, 391 404. Rubin, D. B. and Wu, Y. (1997). Modeling schizophrenic behavior using general mixture components. Biometrics, 53, 243 261. Sugasawa, S., Kobayashi, G. and Kawakubo, Y. (2016). Latent mixture modeling for clustered data. arxiv:1704.05993. Sun, Z., Rosen, O. and Sampson, A. R. (2007). Multivariate Bernoulli mixture models with application to postmortem tissue studies in schizophrenia. Biometrics, 63, 901 909. 23
Tang, X. and Qu, A. (2016). Mixture modeling for longitudinal data. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 25, 1117 1137. Teh, Y. W., Jordan, M. I., Beal, M. J. and Blei, D. M. (2006). Hierarchical Dirichlet processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 1566 1581. Villani, M., Kohn, R. and Giordani, P. (2009). Regression density estimation using smooth adaptive Gaussian mixtures. Journal of Econometrics, 153, 155 173. Villani, M., Kohn, R. and Nott, D. J. (2012). Generalized smooth finite mixtures. Journal of Econometrics, 171, 121 133. Vonesh, E. F., Wang, H., Nie, L. and Majumdar, D. (2002). Conditional second-order generalized estimating equations for generalized linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 271 283. 24