| Abstract: | A multi‐level model allows the possibility of marginalization across levels in different ways, yielding more than one possible marginal likelihood. Since log‐likelihoods are often used in classical model comparison, the question to ask is which likelihood should be chosen for a given model. The authors employ a Bayesian framework to shed some light on qualitative comparison of the likelihoods associated with a given model. They connect these results to related issues of the effective number of parameters, penalty function, and consistent definition of a likelihood‐based model choice criterion. In particular, with a two‐stage model they show that, very generally, regardless of hyperprior specification or how much data is collected or what the realized values are, a priori, the first‐stage likelihood is expected to be smaller than the marginal likelihood. A posteriori, these expectations are reversed and the disparities worsen with increasing sample size and with increasing number of model levels. |
