IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/biomet/v90y2003i2p489-490.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A counterexample to a claim about stochastic simulations

Author

Listed:
  • Bo Henry Lindqvist

Abstract

Engen & Lillegård (1997) presented a general method for doing Monte Carlo simulations conditioned on a sufficient statistic. The basic idea was to adjust the parameter values in the corresponding unconditional simulation so that the actual value of the sufficient statistic is obtained, and the claim was that if this adjustment is unique then the modified simulation is from the conditional distribution. Unfortunately the claim is not correct, as shown by a counterexample. Copyright Biometrika Trust 2003, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Bo Henry Lindqvist, 2003. "A counterexample to a claim about stochastic simulations," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 90(2), pages 489-490, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:90:y:2003:i:2:p:489-490
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. José González-Barrios & Federico O’Reilly & Raúl Rueda, 2010. "Durbin’s random substitution and conditional Monte Carlo," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 72(3), pages 369-383, November.
    2. Bo H. Lindqvist & Rasmus Erlemann & Gunnar Taraldsen, 2022. "Conditional Monte Carlo revisited," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 49(3), pages 943-968, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:90:y:2003:i:2:p:489-490. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/biomet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.