Choosing appropriate priors for bglmer mixed models in blme

On Mar 7, 2015, at 3:09 AM, Jarrod Hadfield <j.hadfield at ed.ac.uk> wrote:

Hi Josie,

Regarding the priors on the fixed effects, if complete separation is the issue having a diffuse prior is not going to help. Gelman (2008) gives some recommendations about priors for logistic regression. Although a Cauchy-prior was considered better than a t-prior, the latter can be used in blmer and should alleviate complete separation issues. I tend to use a normal-prior after performing Gelman's rescaling, but this is mainly because MCMCglmm only handles normal priors for the fixed effects (this may not be true). In a hierarchical model I'm not sure Gelman's advice holds: at least with a normal-prior it makes sense to increase the prior variance as the random-effect variances increase. If the prior variance is approximately v+pi^2/3, where v is the sum of the variance components, then the effects on the probability scale are quite close to being uniform on the 0,1 interval.

You can use the gelman.prior function to obtain the prior covariance matrix for your model. However, note that in the help file I say that the scale argument takes the standard deviation. In fact it takes the variance, but in the next version of MCMCglmm (coming soon) I have fixed this and it will take the standard deviation.

Cheers,

Jarrod


Gelman, A. et al. (2008) The Annals of Appled Statistics 2 4 1360-1383


Quoting Josie Galbraith <josie.galbraith at gmail.com> on Sat, 7 Mar 2015 12:15:41 +1300:

Thanks Ben,
I didn't have problems with singular estimates of variance components with
this data set.  However, I have a few other pathogens/parasites that I'm
looking at (I'm running separate models for each), and after looking at all
of them some do have zero variances for the random effect, either in
addition to large parameter estimates or alongside reasonable parameter
estimates.
Should I be also be imposing a covariance prior in either of these cases?

As a related aside, my data are collected from individual birds - captured
over 4 sampling rounds (6 months apart).  While the majority of
observations are independent, there is a small proportion of birds that
were recaptured in a subsequent sampling round (between 2?15% of
observations, depending on which response variable).  I have modelled my
data both both with and without bird ID as a random effect.  Including it
seems to cause more problems with zero variances.  Is this because too few
of the birds have actually been resampled?

Cheers,
Josie

Josie Galbraith <josie.galbraith at ...> writes:

[snip]

I'm after some advice on how to choose which priors to use.  I gather I
need to impose a weak prior on the fixed effects of my model but no
covariance priors - is this correct?  Can I use a default prior (i.e. t,

or

normal defaults in the blme package) or does it depend on my data?  What

is

considered a suitably weak prior?

  If all you're trying to do is deal with complete separation (and not,
e.g. singular estimates of variance components [typically indicated
by zero variances or +/- 1 correlations, although I'm not sure those
are necessary conditions for singularity]), then it should be OK
to put the prior only on the fixed effects.  Generally speaking a
weak prior is one with a standard deviation that is large relative
to the expected scale of the effect (e.g. we might say sigma=10 is
large, but it won't be if the units of measurement are very small
so that a typical value of the mean is 100,000 ...)

I am running binomial models for epidemiology data (response variable is
presence/absence of lesions), with 2 fixed effects (FOOD: F/NF; SEASON:
Autumn/Spring) and a random effect (SITE: 8 levels).  The main goal of
these models is to test for an effect of the treatment 'FOOD.'  I'm
guessing from what I've read, that my model should be something like the
following:

This seems fairly reasonable at first glance.  Where were you seeing
the complete separation, though?   I would normally expect to
see at least one of the parameters still being reasonably large
if that's the case.

bglmer (LESION ~ FOOD*SEASON +(1|SITE), data = SEYE.df, family =

binomial,

fixef.prior = normal, cov.prior = NULL)

This is the output when I run the model:

Fixef prior: normal(sd = c(10, 2.5, ...), corr = c(0 ...), common.scale =
FALSE)
Prior dev  : 18.2419

Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace
Approximation) [
bglmerMod]
 Family: binomial ( logit )
Formula: LESION ~ FOOD * SEASON + (1 | SITE)
   Data: SEYE.df

[snip]

Random effects:
 Groups Name        Variance Std.Dev.
 SITE   (Intercept) 0.3064   0.5535
Number of obs: 178, groups: SITE, 8

Fixed effects:
                    Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)          -3.7664     1.4551  -2.588  0.00964 **
FOODNF                0.5462     1.6838   0.324  0.74567
SEASONSpring          1.7529     1.4721   1.191  0.23378
FOODNF:SEASONSpring  -0.8151     1.7855  -0.456  0.64803
---
Signif. codes:  0 ?***? 0.001 ?**? 0.01 ?*? 0.05 ?.? 0.1 ? ? 1

[snip]

------------------------------

--
*Josie Galbraith* MSc (hons)

PhD candidate
*University of Auckland *
Joint Graduate School in Biodiversity and Biosecurity ? School of
Biological Sciences ? Tamaki Campus ? Private Bag 92019 ? Auckland 1142* ?
P:* 09-373 7599 ext. 83132* ? E:* josie.galbraith at gmail.com* ? W: * UoA Web
Profile <https://unidirectory.auckland.ac.nz/profile/jgal026> and
*www.birdfeedingnz.weebly.com/* <http://birdfeedingnz.weebly.com/>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

-- 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.