LRT tests in lmer
Hi
are all 5's for example associated with a single fixed factor, or something like this?
The ordinal response are categorical - different levels of threat, however they can be successfully used as a continuous response ( Purvis, Mace etc) they are not associated with any of the fixed factors, i am trying to use the fixed factors (life history traits) to predict the ordinal response. I shall have a play with the priors as
G1=list(V=1, nu=1, alpha.mu=0, alpha.V=1000)
Has improved things, but not greatly Thanks Chris Intercept) -0.23325 -2.89744 2.83429 793.1 0.884 STOStorage organ -0.04486 -0.28088 0.23706 1306.4 0.722 BSUnisexual flower 0.21329 -0.11396 0.52257 861.1 0.206 BSUnisexual plant 0.33547 -0.04818 0.75086 806.5 0.122 PDBiotic 0.28292 -0.13199 0.63020 599.1 0.184 PDMammalia -0.46017 -2.15330 1.44028 862.8 0.640 FRNon_fleshy_fruit -0.22784 -0.54680 0.10850 764.5 0.192 ENDNon_endospermous 0.44173 0.10830 0.74418 747.8 0.016 * WOWoody -0.22039 -0.59506 0.11227 631.0 0.252 RGTwo+ -0.04816 -0.24944 0.15221 816.4 0.666 SEAHapaxanthic -1.53904 -4.55702 1.67797 688.6 0.330 SEAHapaxanthic 0.18037 -1.72087 2.27258 796.5 0.800 SEAPerennial -0.07601 -0.44810 0.33258 926.0 0.712 SEAPleonanthic -0.14699 -1.14695 0.81452 723.9 0.748 ALTHigh -0.13191 -0.46780 0.22911 725.0 0.452 ALTLow -0.17699 -0.51173 0.10969 772.8 0.292 ALTMid 0.06855 -0.21312 0.41342 882.1 0.684 BIOBoreal 1.74800 -1.18782 4.72759 782.0 0.242 BIOMediterranean-type 2.08074 -0.62533 5.05527 780.1 0.140 BIOSubantarctic 2.17686 -1.13669 5.24883 806.7 0.180 BIOSubarctic 2.39551 -0.91077 5.41454 839.1 0.138 BIOSubtropical/Tropical 2.31132 -0.36795 5.24304 791.5 0.110 BIOTemperate 2.29529 -0.41744 5.18185 795.5 0.104 SEFew-Several 1.86331 -0.57544 4.01647 732.1 0.106 SENumerous 0.20823 -0.14937 0.57547 851.4 0.226 SESeveral 0.66868 -0.13298 1.45685 894.6 0.102 SESingle 0.42408 0.07265 0.80295 872.5 0.022 * FSZygomorphic 0.01505 -0.22554 0.27481 760.5 0.908
On 11 Aug 2010, at 17:34, Jarrod Hadfield wrote:
Hi Chris, The model syntax looks reasonable but there seems to be some large posterior means (outside of the 95% credible range). I bet plot(model$VCV) looks pretty horrible too. You need to consider using proper priors in this instance because the chain is getting stuck at zero for long periods of time and generating numerical problems. I tend to use parameter expanded priors more and more as they improve mixing and seem to be only weakly informative. For example: G1=list(V=1, nu=1, alpha.mu=0, alpha.V=1000) .... There is also the possibility that you have complete separation as you have a lot of fixed effects and many levels in the ordinal response - are all 5's for example associated with a single fixed factor, or something like this? Jarrod
On 11 Aug 2010, at 17:20, Chris Mcowen wrote:
Sorry about the formatting,
i was not going to use P values for model selection, rather the DIC value
Iterations = 12991
Thinning interval = 3001
Sample size = 1000
DIC: 3171.501
G-structure: ~order
post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp
order 7720 4.023e-13 0.09208 1000
~fam:fam
post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp
fam:fam 4092456 2.376e-12 0.02938 1000
R-structure: ~units
post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp
units 1 1 1 0
Location effects: IUCN ~ STO + BS + PD + FR + END + WO + RG + SEA + ALT + BIO + SE + FS
post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp pMCMC
(Intercept) 39.065870 -3.510793 2.407406 1000.0 0.776
STOStorage organ -0.004916 -0.299409 0.230731 757.2 0.946
BSUnisexual flower 0.211852 -0.131660 0.548879 708.0 0.212
BSUnisexual plant 0.370895 0.003567 0.817429 770.3 0.070 .
PDBiotic 0.381261 0.054626 0.724368 774.4 0.040 *
PDMammalia 26.364377 -2.139720 1.397539 1000 .0 0.724
FRNon_fleshy_fruit -0.208198 -0.536699 0.083012 964.2 0.202
ENDNon_endospermous 0.503829 0.200868 0.822120 591.7 0.004 **
WOWoody -0.203632 -0.565069 0.139240 857.5 0.272
RGTwo+ -0.052508 -0.250675 0.163811 831.8 0.588
SEAHapaxanthic -1.344993 -4.504625 1.848373 890.4 0.406
SEAHapaxanthic 0.223060 -1.590483 2.012970 785.9 0.800
SEAPerennial -0.097971 -0.460607 0.304681 849.9 0.580
SEAPleonanthic -0.069756 -0.813837 0.704066 969.4 0.872
ALTHigh -0.129331 -0.483238 0.200436 1000.0 0.472
ALTLow -0.171467 -0.514753 0.121200 842.9 0.316
ALTMid 0.068307 -0.227978 0.379701 814.9 0.660
BIOBoreal 1.785916 -1.222387 4.769563 860.2 0.254
BIOMediterranean-type 2.105530 -0.888236 4.786029 817.9 0.156
BIOSubantarctic 2.214561 -0.888921 5.239470 841.3 0.190
BIOSubarctic 2.441894 -0.667793 5.677992 849.5 0.142
BIOSubtropical/Tropical 2.336425 -0.660675 4.899198 928.3 0.124
BIOTemperate 2.315834 -0.761101 4.826330 809.2 0.132
SEFew-Several 146.220538 -0.620787 3.933475 1000.0 0.172
SENumerous 0.206148 -0.117869 0.572987 734.9 0.236
SESeveral 0.626675 -0.236956 1.456895 881.7 0.134
SESingle 0.399690 0.030041 0.779923 709.8 0.032 *
FSZygomorphic 0.032334 -0.215194 0.265597 355.7 0.814
---
Signif. codes: 0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1
Cutpoints:
post.mean l-95% CI u-95% CI eff.samp
cutpoint.traitIUCN.1 0.6593 0.5211 0.793 48.46
cutpoint.traitIUCN.2 2.4694 2.2952 2.663 41.37
cutpoint.traitIUCN.3 3.6258 3.4220 3.827 38.02
cutpoint.traitIUCN.4 4.1156 3.9166 4.341 52.46
On 11 Aug 2010, at 17:15, Jarrod Hadfield wrote:
Hi,
Could you give summary(model) with the new version (2.05) - it will be easier to see what is going on?
Jarrod
On 11 Aug 2010, at 17:08, Chris Mcowen wrote:
Hi Jarrord, I have tried using MCMCglmm, however the posterior distributions of the majority of the fixed factors straddle 0, which i have read is a problem, likely with the priors. HPDintervals - https://files.me.com/chrismcowen/wqq1lu prior=list(R=list(V=1, fix=1), G=list(G1=list(V=1, nu=0), G2=list(V=1, nu=0))) So i am unsure how to interpret the results, as to ascertain the importance of each factor. Unfortunately i don't know enough about baysian statistics or R to alter my model so the interpretations become clearer. An example lower upper (Intercept) -3.510792767 2.40740650 STOStorage organ -0.299408836 0.23073133 BSUnisexual flower -0.131660436 0.54887912 BSUnisexual plant 0.003566637 0.81742862 PDBiotic 0.054625970 0.72436838 PDMammalia -2.139720264 1.39753939 On 11 Aug 2010, at 16:37, Jarrod Hadfield wrote: Hi Chris, It is hard to say as it will depend on the fixed effects. In addition its not clear whether such a situation is diagnostic of a problem. Imagine you just have an intercept which is estimated to be exactly zero. The residuals on the data scale will be either 0.5 or -0.5, but this does not imply the model is wrong. Cheers, Jarrod On 11 Aug 2010, at 15:41, Chris Mcowen wrote:
Thats great thanks, But will this work where you have a binary response variable or will the residuals clump around 1 and 0? Chris On 11 Aug 2010, at 15:31, Ben Bolker wrote: On 10-08-11 10:21 AM, Chris Mcowen wrote:
Dear Ben/Rob.
As far as I can tell, the standard advice is simply to look at the predictions of the model, compare them with the data, and try to spot any systematic patterns in the residuals.
I have plotted the residuals of my model - https://files.me.com/chrismcowen/v586vx I have been made aware that that lmer uses the random effects in its prediction ( Jarrord Hadfield). And this is reflected in the residual plot with the the long lines of equal residuals all belonging to the same family - i.e 200 - 600 is the orchid family and 650-100 is the grass family. So is there a work around with a glmm? Thanks Chris
If you want to do population-level predictions from a GLMM (i.e. setting all random effects to zero), the basic recipe is to (1) construct a model (design) matrix for the desired sets of predictor variables (if you want to the predict the observed data rather than some other set, you can just extract the model matrix from the fitted object); (2) multiply it by the vector of fixed effect coefficients; (3) transform it back to the scale of the observations with the inverse link function. There's an example on p. 6 of http://glmm.wdfiles.com/local--files/examples/Owls.pdf ...
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models _______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
_______________________________________________ R-sig-mixed-models at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mixed-models
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.