sum_{j=1}^q \log f_{j,\theta}(A_j
Z\mid B_j Z),$$ where $f_{j,\theta}$ is the conditional Gaussian density of $A_j Z$ given $B_j Z$. As proposed by @vecchia and @steinchiwelty, the rank of $B_j$ will generally be larger than that of $A_j$, in which case the main computation in obtaining (\[composite\]) is finding Cholesky decompositions of the covariance matrices of $B_1Z,\ldots,
B_q Z$. For example, @vecchia just lets $A_j Z$ be the $j$th component of $Z$ and $B_j Z$ some subset of $Z_1,\ldots,Z_{j-1}$. If $m$ is the largest of these subsets, then the storage requirements for this computation are $O(m^2)$ rather than $O(n^2)$. Comparable to increasing the number of $U_j$’s in the randomized algorithm used here, this approach can be updated to obtain a better approximation of the likelihood by increasing the size of the subset of $Z_1,\ldots,Z_{j-1}$ to condition on when computing the conditional density of $Z_j$. However, for this approach to be efficient from the perspective of flops, one needs to store the Cholesky decompositions of the covariance matrices of $B_1Z,\ldots,B_q Z$, which would greatly increase the memory requirements of the algorithm. For dealing with truly massive data sets, our long-term plan is to combine the randomized approach studied here with a composite likelihood by using the randomized algorithms to compute the gradient of (\[composite\]), thus making it possible to consider $A_j$’s and $B_j$’s of larger rank than would be feasible if one had to do exact calculations.

Section \[sec2\] provides a bound on the efficiency of the estimating equations based on the approximate likelihood relative to the Fisher information matrix. The bound is in terms of the condition number of the true covariance matrix of the observations and shows that if the covariance matrix is well conditioned, $N$ does not need to be very large to obtain nearly optimal estimating equations. Section \[sec3\] shows how one can get improved estimating equations by choosing the $U_j$’s in (\[ascore\]) based on a design related
sum_{j=1}^q \log f_{j,\theta}(A_j 
 Z\mid B_j Z),$$ where $ f_{j,\theta}$ is the conditional Gaussian density of $ A_j Z$ given $ B_j Z$. As proposed by @vecchia and @steinchiwelty, the rank of $ B_j$ will by and large be large than that of $ A_j$, in which case the main computation in receive (\[composite\ ]) is finding Cholesky decompositions of the covariance matrix of $ B_1Z,\ldots, 
 B_q Z$. For exercise, @vecchia just let $ A_j Z$ be the $ j$th component of $ Z$ and $ B_j Z$ some subset of $ Z_1,\ldots, Z_{j-1}$. If $ m$ is the largest of these subset, then the storage requirements for this computation are $ O(m^2)$ rather than $ O(n^2)$. Comparable to increase the number of $ U_j$ ’s in the randomized algorithm used here, this approach can be updated to obtain a effective approximation of the likelihood by increasing the size of the subset of $ Z_1,\ldots, Z_{j-1}$ to stipulate on when computing the conditional density of $ Z_j$. However, for this approach to be efficient from the position of flops, one want to store the Cholesky decompositions of the covariance matrices of $ B_1Z,\ldots, B_q Z$, which would greatly increase the memory requirements of the algorithm. For consider with truly massive data sets, our long - term design is to unite the randomized approach studied here with a composite likelihood by using the randomized algorithms to compute the gradient of (\[composite\ ]), thus making it possible to see $ A_j$ ’s and $ B_j$ ’s of larger rank than would be feasible if one have to dress exact calculations. 

 incision \[sec2\ ] provides a bound on the efficiency of the estimating equations free-base on the approximate likelihood relative to the Fisher information matrix. The bound is in terms of the condition number of the dependable covariance matrix of the observations and shows that if the covariance matrix is well conditioned, $ N$ does not need to be very big to obtain about optimal estimating equations. Section \[sec3\ ] shows how one can get improved estimate equations by choosing the $ U_j$ ’s in (\[ascore\ ]) based on a invention related
sum_{u=1}^q \log f_{j,\theta}(A_j
Z\mid B_j E),$$ where $f_{j,\theta}$ is the cmnditiknal Gaursian density of $A_j Z$ given $U_j Z$. As peoposed by @vecchia and @steinchiaelty, thw raik of $B_j$ will geisrally nz larfcr thcn that of $A_j$, in which casa the main com[ugacion in obtaining (\[composite\]) is findigg Cholrsny decompositijns ps ths covariance matrices of $B_1Z,\ldots,
B_q Z$. For txample, @vecchia juxt lets $A_j Z$ be the $j$th colponfnt of $Z$ and $B_j Z$ dome subset of $S_1,\odots,Z_{j-1}$. If $m$ is the lagyest of theae subsets, then the storage reqjiremznts for thus colkutation are $O(m^2)$ rwther than $O(k^2)$. Compasable tp increasing tme nukbee of $U_j$’s in the randokized algorithm usgd here, thhs approach can be ypeated to mbtakb a beutec alproxilatmon of the mikelihood vy increasing the sozq of the subsef of $Z_1,\jdjts,Z_{j-1}$ to condition on when computing tht consitional density of $Z_j$. Yowever, for this apprlach to bq efficient from the perspective of flops, one neegs to rtoxc gye Cholesky decompositions of the covariance maedivex of $B_1Z,\ldots,B_q Z$, which woilf bteatly increasg the mzjody requirements of the aldoritym. For dewlinb with truly massive data swts, our long-nerm plan is to combinz the randomnzed akproacn studied here with a cumpoaite likelijood by uakng the randomizdd slcorithms to compute the grwdient of (\[com'osite\]), tfus kaking it possibpe to consider $A_j$’s and $B_u$’s of ldrger rank than would be feasible if one ied to do exacj cdlcllations.

Szction \[sec2\] provides a bound on thg efficieucy of the estimzting exuations bafed on the ap[toximate likenihood rqlatuve ro the Wksher informatoon matriq. Uhe bound us in terms of the covsition number oy uhw true covariamce maerpx pf dhe observathons ana showr that if tme zovatiance matrix is weln cohditioned, $N$ does npt need to be very large to obtsin nearly optimal estikatmng eqiatyons. Section \[sec3\] shows how one can get lmpvoved estimatyng cquajions by chposing the $U_j$’s in (\[ascore\]) based on a desmgn related
sum_{j=1}^q \log f_{j,\theta}(A_j Z\mid B_j Z),$$ where the Gaussian density $A_j Z$ given @vecchia @steinchiwelty, the rank $B_j$ will generally larger than that of $A_j$, in case the main computation in obtaining (\[composite\]) is finding Cholesky decompositions of the matrices of $B_1Z,\ldots, B_q Z$. For example, @vecchia just lets $A_j Z$ be $j$th of and Z$ some subset of $Z_1,\ldots,Z_{j-1}$. If $m$ is the largest of these subsets, then the storage for this computation are $O(m^2)$ rather than $O(n^2)$. to increasing the number $U_j$’s in the randomized algorithm here, approach can updated obtain better approximation of likelihood by increasing the size of the subset of $Z_1,\ldots,Z_{j-1}$ to condition on when computing the conditional of $Z_j$. this approach be from perspective of flops, to store the Cholesky decompositions of of $B_1Z,\ldots,B_q Z$, which would greatly increase the requirements of algorithm. For dealing with truly massive sets, our long-term plan is to combine the approach studied here with a composite likelihood by using the randomized algorithms to compute the (\[composite\]), thus making it to consider $A_j$’s $B_j$’s larger than be feasible one had to do exact calculations. Section \[sec2\] provides a bound the efficiency of the estimating equations based on the approximate to Fisher information matrix. bound is in terms the number of the true of observations if covariance is well conditioned, $N$ not need to be very to obtain nearly optimal how one can get improved estimating equations by the $U_j$’s in (\[ascore\]) based on a related
sum_{j=1}^q \log f_{j,\theta}(A_j
Z\mid B_j Z),$$ wHere $f_{j,\thetA}$ is thE coNdiTiOnal gausSian density of $A_J z$ givEn $B_j Z$. As proposed by @vecchIa and @StEInchIWeLty, thE rank of $b_J$ wILL geNeRaLly Be LArGer thAn tHat of $A_j$, In which casE thE mAin computatiON iN obtaining (\[ComPosite\]) is findIng cholesKy DecOMposiTioNs of tHe covaRIance mAtrices of $b_1Z,\LDots,
B_q z$. for examPLE, @vEcchIa just lets $A_j Z$ be thE $J$tH Component of $Z$ anD $B_j Z$ soMe SUbSET of $z_1,\ldOts,Z_{j-1}$. If $m$ is ThE largESt of theSE sUBSEts, THen the storage RequirementS For This coMpUtaTIon are $o(m^2)$ ratHeR ThaN $O(n^2)$. ComparabLe to IncreasinG the nuMBer of $U_j$’S In the raNdomizEd aLgoRithM UsEd HerE, tHIs aPPrOacH Can Be updateD tO oBtain A betTER APproXimAtioN of thE likelihood by IncReasINg tHe sizE of thE subSeT of $Z_1,\lDots,Z_{j-1}$ To conDiTion on when compuTing The conditIonAl DenSiTy of $Z_J$. howeveR, foR thIs approAch to be EFfiCiENT FrOm the perspective of FlOPS, oNe needs tO store THe chOLesky decOmPosItioNS Of the CovaRIaNce matriCes of $B_1z,\LdOtS,B_q Z$, whiCh Would gReAtlY inCreasE The mEmory rEquiremeNts of THe algorithm. For DEaling with truLY mASSiVE datA seTs, our long-teRm plAN is tO comBInE thE RandoMized ApPRoACh studied here with a cOmPosite LikelIhood by using tHe randomizED ALgorithmS to cOMpUTe the gradient oF (\[compOsite\]), thus mAKing it poSsiblE to consiDer $A_j$’s and $b_J$’S of largeR raNk tHan WouLD Be Feasible if one HAD to dO eXact calCulAtions.

SEctIon \[Sec2\] ProViDes a bound On the effIcIeNcY oF thE estiMAting equAtIonS bAseD on thE ApproxImate LikeLiHoOD reLative tO ThE fIsheR iNfOrmaTioN mAtrix. the bOUnd Is in terMs of the coNdiTIon nUmBeR of the tRue covariance MaTrix of the oBsErvAtions AND shows thAt if the covariance matrix IS well coNdiTioneD, $N$ doEs not need To bE very lArgE To obtaIn nearLy optImAl eSTImatiNG EqUatIoNs. Section \[sEC3\] ShoWs how OnE can Get imprOved estimating equaTIonS by choosing thE $U_j$’S in (\[aSCOrE\]) baSEd ON a dEsIGn rELAted
sum_{j=1}^q \log f_{j,\the ta}(A_j
Z\ mid B _jZ), $$  whe re $ f_{j,\theta}$i s th e conditional Gaussian  dens it y  of$ A_ j Z$given $ B _j Z $.As  p rop os e dby @v ecc hia and  @steinchi wel ty , the rank o f  $ B_j$ willgen erally be la rge r than  t hat of $A _j$ , inwhichc ase th e main co mp u tation in obta i n in g (\ [composite\]) isf in d ing Cholesky d ecompo si t io n s  of  th e covarian ce  matr i ces of$ B_ 1 Z , \ld o ts,
B_q Z$. F or example, @ve cchiaju stl ets $A _j Z$  b e  th e $j$th com pone nt of $Z$  and $ B _j Z$ s o me subs et of$Z_ 1,\ ldot s ,Z _{ j-1 }$ .  If $m $ i s  th e larges tof  thes e su b s e t s, t hen  the  stor age requireme nts  for thi s com putat ionar e $O( m^2)$rathe rthan $O(n^2)$.Comp arable to  in cr eas in g the number  of  $U _j$’s i n the r a ndo mi z e d  a lgorithm used here ,t h is  approac h canb eup d ated toob tai n ab e tterappr o xi mation o f thel ik el ihood b yincrea si ngthe  size of t he sub set of $ Z_1,\ l dots,Z_{j-1}$t o condition o n  w h e nc ompu tin g the condi tion a l de nsit y  o f $ Z _j$.Howev er ,  f o r this approach tobe  effic ientfrom the pers pective of f l ops, one  nee d st o store the Ch olesk y decompos i tions of  thecovarian ce matric e s  of $B_1 Z,\ ldo ts, B_q Z $,  which wouldg r eatl yincreas e t he memo ryreq uir eme nt s of thealgorith m.  F or  d eal ing w i th truly  m ass iv e d ata s e ts, ou r lon g-te rm  p l anis to c o mb i n e th era ndom ize dappro achs tud ied her e with acom p osit eli kelihoo d by using th erandomized  a lgo rithms t o comput e the gradient of (\[co m posite\ ]),  thus  mak ing it po ssi ble to  co n sider$A_j$’ s and  $ B_j $ ’ s ofl a rg erra nk than wo u l d b e fea si bleif onehad to do exact ca l cul ations.

Sect ion  \[s e c 2\ ] p r ov i des  a bou n d  on the efficie ncy of the  e s ti mating equ a tio ns  basedon theappro x imate l ikelihood  relative  t o th e Fis her inform ation ma trix. The bound is  in t erm s of t he  co nditi on num b erof th e true  c ovaria nce m at rix of t he observations and sho ws tha t ifthe  covarian cem atr ix is wel l co nditioned,  $N $ d oes n otn eed t o be ve ryl argeto o b tain near l yopt i m al  estimating e q uat ions.  Se c tion \ [sec 3\] shows how one can get improv ed e s t ima tin g  equ at ions by choosi ngth e $U_j$’sin  (\[ascore\ ]) based  o n  a de sign r elated 
sum_{j=1}^q \log_f_{j,\theta}(A_j
Z\mid B_j_Z),$$ where $f_{j,\theta}$ is_the conditional_Gaussian_density of_$A_j_Z$ given $B_j_Z$. As proposed_by @vecchia and @steinchiwelty,_the rank of_$B_j$_will generally be larger than that of $A_j$, in which case the main computation_in_obtaining (\[composite\])_is_finding_Cholesky decompositions of the covariance_matrices of $B_1Z,\ldots,
B_q Z$. For_example, @vecchia_just lets $A_j Z$ be the $j$th component_of_$Z$ and $B_j_Z$ some subset of $Z_1,\ldots,Z_{j-1}$. If $m$ is the_largest of these subsets, then the_storage requirements for_this_computation_are $O(m^2)$ rather than_$O(n^2)$. Comparable to increasing the number_of $U_j$’s in the randomized algorithm_used here, this approach can be updated_to obtain a better approximation of_the likelihood by increasing the_size of_the subset of $Z_1,\ldots,Z_{j-1}$ to_condition on when_computing the_conditional density of_$Z_j$. However, for this approach to_be efficient from_the perspective of flops, one needs_to_store the Cholesky_decompositions_of_the covariance_matrices of $B_1Z,\ldots,B_q_Z$,_which would_greatly_increase the memory requirements of the_algorithm._For dealing with truly massive data sets,_our long-term plan is_to_combine the randomized approach_studied here with a composite_likelihood by using the randomized algorithms_to compute_the gradient_of (\[composite\]), thus making it possible to consider $A_j$’s and $B_j$’s_of larger rank than would be_feasible if one had_to do_exact_calculations.

Section \[sec2\] provides_a_bound on_the efficiency of the estimating equations based_on the_approximate likelihood relative to the Fisher_information matrix. The bound_is_in terms of the condition number_of the true covariance matrix of_the observations and shows that_if_the_covariance matrix is well conditioned,_$N$ does not need to be_very large to_obtain nearly optimal estimating equations. Section \[sec3\]_shows_how one can get improved estimating_equations_by choosing the $U_j$’s in (\[ascore\])_based_on_a design related