[OFF] stepwise using REML???
Em Dom 22 Jun 2003 11:18, Douglas Bates escreveu:
For nested design it may be very dangerous due the difference in variance structure, mainly in a splitplot design. ML make significative variables that REML dont make.
It would be good to quote an example that shows this. I'm not sure that this occurs in general.
Look this example: Using stepwise with a ML estimation: -------------------------------------- m0.ml <- lme(response~1,random=~1|plot1/plot2,method="ML") mfull.ml <- update(m0.ml,.~.+v1*v2+v1*v3)
stepAIC(mfull.ml)
Start: AIC= 250.23
response ~ v1 + v2 + v3 + v1:v2 + v1:v3
Df AIC
- v1:v3 11 249.82
<none> 250.23
- v1:v2 2 253.65
...
Linear mixed-effects model fit by maximum likelihood
Data: NULL
Log-likelihood: -112.9370
Fixed: response ~ v1 + v2 + v1:v2
(Intercept) v1 v2l2
12.5936495 -0.3327049 -15.9920774
v2l3 v1:v2l2 v1:v2l3
-12.5285727 0.3750894 0.3014936
Random effects:
Formula: ~1 | plot1
(Intercept)
StdDev: 0.004214203
Formula: ~1 | plot2 %in% plot1
(Intercept) Residual
StdDev: 0.3051747 0.5556307
Number of Observations: 124
Number of Groups:
plot1 plot2 %in% plot1
6 17
--------------------------------------
in this case the selected model is v1*v2, but in this case it use the same
denominator DF for all variables, and it is not true.
In anova made by REML:
--------------------------------------
m0 <- lme(response~1,random=~1|plot1/plot2)
mfull <- update(m0,.~.+v1*v2+v1*v3)
anova(mfull)
numDF denDF F-value p-value
(Intercept) 1 85 126.08414 <.0001
v1 1 8 1.86229 0.2095
v2 2 3 1.90189 0.2928
v3 11 85 1.58872 0.1167
v1:v2 2 8 3.53897 0.0792
v1:v3 11 85 1.71976 0.0825
---------------------------------------
In this case all variables are not significative.
I read an article that is made a stepwise procedure using GENSTAT. from article: "Terms were dropped from a model in a stepwise procedure by assessing the change in deviance between the full model and the submodel." All are made using REML. It is possible?! I dont know GENSTAT.
You would need to be more specific about how the comparisons are made. I assume that you plan to keep the random effects structure constant and compare two nested models that differ only in the fixed effects terms. I can think of four ways of doing this: 1) Use the F-test obtained by fitting the full model and conditioning on the estimates of the random effects parameters. This is what the anova function applied to an model fit by lme gives. 2) Fit both models and compare the values of the REML criterion in a likelihood ratio test. 3) Fit both models by REML and compare the values of the log-likelihood (i.e. the ML criterion) in a likelihood ratio test. You can obtain that value with logLik(fm, REML=FALSE) if fm is your fitted model. 4)Fit both models and evaluate the REML criterion for the full model at the two sets of estimates. Compare these values in a likelihood ratio test. I feel that 1) is appropriate, 2) is inappropriate, 3) may be appropriate and 4) looks interesting. 4) is based on recent work by Greg Reinsel. In some simulations reported in chapter 3 of Pinheiro and Bates (2000) 3) fared badly compared to 1).
Thanks for all ______________________________________________
R-help at stat.math.ethz.ch mailing list https://www.stat.math.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
Nothing is but what is not. -- | // | \\ [***********************************] |> ( ? ? ) [Ronaldo Reis J?nior ] | V [UFV/DBA-Entomologia ] |> / \ [36571-000 Vi?osa - MG ] | /(.''`.)\ [Fone: 31-3899-2532 ] |>/(: :' :)\ [chrysopa at insecta.ufv.br ] |/ (`. `'` ) \[ICQ#: 5692561 | LinuxUser#: 205366 ] |> ( `- ) [***********************************] |>> _/ \_Powered by GNU/Debian Woody/Sarge