2
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to perform Bayesian structural equation modeling in Python and PyMC3, but I think the problem is similar for most probabilistic progamming languages, include JAGS, Stan, etc.

SEMs are often defined using equations like these:

$\begin{equation} \boldsymbol{y}=\boldsymbol{\nu}+\boldsymbol{\Lambda}\boldsymbol{\eta}+\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\\ \boldsymbol{\eta}=\boldsymbol{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{B}\boldsymbol{\eta}+\boldsymbol{\zeta}\\ \boldsymbol{\epsilon}\sim\mathrm{MvNormal}\left(0, \boldsymbol{\Theta}\right)\\ \boldsymbol{\zeta}\sim\mathrm{MvNormal}\left(0, \boldsymbol{\Psi}\right) \end{equation}$

As you can see, the latent variables in $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ are defined in terms of themselves. The model makes sense because $\boldsymbol{B}$ is a sparse, invertible, non-symmetric matrix that defines paths between latent variables, but I'm not sure how to code this in practice. Can the second equation be re-written/expanded to so that the definition is no longer "circular" and therefore more amenable to coding?

I realize that under SEM one usually marginalizes out $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ and so the problem is moot. However, I think it should be possible to code it up with $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ explicitly sampled.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What makes the original form difficult for coding? I fail to see $\endgroup$ – Aksakal May 18 '20 at 17:14
  • $\begingroup$ Defining a variable as a function of itself, which hasn't been defined yet. x = x won't work in most programming languages. $\endgroup$ – sammosummo May 18 '20 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ I wouldn't define it like that. For instance, in c++ you could do f(**f()), in Python you could pass a list of functions references. It's also more generic than naming concrete functions, this way you can pass any functions $\endgroup$ – Aksakal May 18 '20 at 19:29
  • $\begingroup$ Exactly, I don't want to define it that way. This is more of a question of the mathematical notation anyhow. The accepted answer perfectly understood the issue and provided the correct answer. $\endgroup$ – sammosummo May 18 '20 at 19:33
2
$\begingroup$

Assuming $(\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{B})$ is invertible, we can rewrite the $\boldsymbol{\eta}$ equation as follows:

$$ \begin{align} \boldsymbol{\eta} &= \boldsymbol{\alpha}+\mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\eta}+\boldsymbol{\zeta} \\ &\Updownarrow \\ \boldsymbol{\eta} - \mathbf{B}\boldsymbol{\eta} &= \boldsymbol{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\zeta} \\ &\Updownarrow \\ (\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{B})\boldsymbol{\eta} &= \boldsymbol{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\zeta} \\ &\Updownarrow \\ \boldsymbol{\eta} &= (\mathbf{I} - \mathbf{B})^{-1} (\boldsymbol{\alpha}+\boldsymbol{\zeta}) \\ \end{align} $$

Where $\mathbf{I}$ is an identity matrix with the appropriate shape.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.