The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results
Open accessAbstract
An extensive literature in econometrics and in numerical analysis has considered the problem of evaluating the multiple integral P(B; μ, Ω) = ∝ab n(v − μ, Ω)dv ≡ Ev1(V ϵ B), where V is a m-dimensional normal vector with mean μ, covariance matrix Ω, and density n(v − μ, Ω), and 1(V ϵ B) is an indicator for the event B = (V¦a < V < b). A leading case of such an integral is the negative orthant probability, where B = (V ¦V < 0). The problem is computationally difficult except in very special cases. The multinomial probit (MNP) model used in econometrics and biometrics has cell probabilities that are negative orthant probabilities, with μ and Ω depending on unknown parameters (and, in general, on covariates). Estimation of this model requires, for each trial parameter vector and each observation in a sample, evaluation of P(B; μ, Ω) and of its derivatives with respect to μ and Ω. This paper surveys Monte Carlo techniques that have been developed for approximations of P(B; μ, Ω) and its linear and logarithmic derivatives, that limit computation while possessing properties that facilitate their use in iterative calculations for statistical inference: the Crude Frequency Simulator (CFS), Normal Importance Sampling (NIS), a Kernel-Smoothed Frequency Simulator (KFS), Stern's Decomposition Simulator (SDS), the Geweke-Hajivassiliou-Keane Simulator (GHK), a Parabolic Cylinder Function Simulator (PCF), Deák's Chi-squared Simulator (DCS), an Acceptance/Rejection Simulator (ARS), the Gibbs Sampler Simulator (GSS), a Sequentially Unbiased Simulator (SUS), and an Approximately Unbiased Simulator (AUS). We also discuss Gauss and FORTRAN implementations of these algorithms and present our computational experience with them. We find that GHK is overall the most reliable method.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Mathematical Functions
McQuarrie, D. A. (1966) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.1972842 · Cited by 40,433
Simulation and the Monte Carlo Method
Rubinstein, R. Y., & Kroese, D. P. (2016) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118631980 · Cited by 3,356
The Greatest of a Finite Set of Random Variables
Clark, C. E. (1961) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.9.2.145 · Cited by 708
Cited by
Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation
Train, K. E. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805271 · Cited by 7,784
Bhat, C. R. (2003) · Transportation Research Part B: Methodological · doi:10.1016/s0191-2615(02)00090-5 · Cited by 855
Access to Credit and Its Impact on Welfare in Malawi
(2001) · International Food Policy Research Institute eBooks · doi:10.2499/0896291197rr116 · Cited by 276
Börsch-Supan, A. (2000) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/s0047-2727(99)00110-3 · Cited by 258
Larivière, B., & Van den Poel, D. (2004) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2004.02.002 · Cited by 159
Metadata
- Authors
- Hajivassiliou, V., McFadden, D., & Ruud, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Econometrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 85-134
- ISSN
- 0304-4076 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994828281
- Cited by
- 463
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01716-6
- The paper
- Hajivassiliou, V., McFadden, D., & Ruud, P. (1996). Simulation of multivariate normal rectangle probabilities and their derivatives theoretical and computational results. Journal of Econometrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01716-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.