Valid inference under the asymmetric Laplace likelihood
Source:vignettes/bqmm-inference.Rmd
bqmm-inference.RmdThe problem
The asymmetric Laplace distribution (ALD) is a convenient working likelihood for quantile regression: its mode-as-quantile and the check-loss connection make Bayesian computation straightforward (Yu and Moyeed, 2001). But it is misspecified for almost any real data-generating process, and a misspecified likelihood produces a posterior whose spread is the wrong asymptotic variance for the quantile-regression estimator. Naive credible intervals from such a posterior do not have correct frequentist coverage.
The correction
Yang, Wang and He (2016) restore validity with a multiplicative sandwich that re-uses the posterior covariance as the “bread”:
where is the posterior covariance of the fixed effects and is the meat — the variance of the asymmetric-Laplace working-likelihood score. With score on the conditional residuals , the meat is (cluster-robust on the grouping factor; the default), or its independence analogue.
Using as the bread is what makes this correct for a mixed model: the posterior covariance already encodes the multilevel pooling, so the adjustment keeps the random-effect contribution to fixed-effect uncertainty while fixing the misspecified ALD scale. Under correct specification and the correction reduces to .
Why not the plain Koenker sandwich?
The textbook fixed-effects sandwich
(available internally as compute_ywh_sandwich() and
validated against quantreg) is computed on residuals with
the random effects removed, so it drops the between-cluster variance and
under-covers the mixed-model fixed effects. A
simulation bake-off (tools/bakeoff.R) confirmed this:
across homoscedastic and heteroscedastic two-level designs at several
quantiles, the Koenker form covered the fixed intercept at only
0.72–0.92, while the multiplicative form above covered at 0.95–1.00 — at
or just above nominal everywhere.
Scope and caveats
- Validity is claimed for the fixed-effect block. Variance components retain their model-based posterior summaries.
- The correction is mildly conservative (slightly over-nominal) under weak misspecification — the price of guaranteed validity.
- It is a large-sample / many-clusters argument; with very few clusters the cluster-robust meat is noisy.