Thanks - I started an issue there to answer some of my questions.
Regarding the installation: I was trying to somehow do it in anaconda with
a specific R kernel and had some issues. I am trying to resort that with
the anaconda guys though, if I have a tutorial on how to properly setup
glmmTMB in anaconda, I will let you know. The install worked fine in my
standard R environment.
On 24.06.2016 15:40, Ben Bolker wrote:
Probably for now the glmmTMB issues page is best.
When you go there:
- details on installation problems/hiccups would be useful
- a reproducible example for the problem listed below would be useful
- dispformula is for allowing dispersion/residual variance to vary
with covariates (i.e., modeling heteroscedasticity)
cheers
Ben Bolker
On 16-06-24 09:13 AM, Philipp Singer wrote:
Update, I tried it like that, but receive an error message.
Warning message:
In nlminb(start = par, objective = fn, gradient = gr): NA/NaN function
evaluation
Error in solve.default(hessian.fixed): Lapack routine dgesv: system is
exactly singular: U[3,3] = 0
Traceback:
1. glmmTMB(y ~ 1 + x + (1 | b),
. data = data, family = "poisson", dispformula = ~1 + x)
2. sdreport(obj)
3. solve(hessian.fixed)
4. solve(hessian.fixed)
5. solve.default(hessian.fixed)
Any ideas on that?
BTW: Is it fine to post glmmTMB questions here, or should I rather use
the github issue page, or is there maybe a dedicated mailing list?
Thanks,
Philipp
On 24.06.2016 14:35, Philipp Singer wrote:
It indeed seems to run quite fast; had some trouble installing, but
works now on my 3.3 R setup.
One question I have is regarding the specification of dispersion as I
need to specify the dispformula. What is the difference here between
just specifying fixed effects vs. also the random effects?
On 23.06.2016 23:07, Mollie Brooks wrote:
glmmTMB does crossed RE. Ben did some timings in vignette("glmmTMB")
and it was 2.3 times faster than glmer for one simple GLMM.
On 23Jun 2016, at 10:44, Philipp Singer <killver at gmail.com> wrote:
Did try glmmADMB but unfortunately it is way too slow for my data.
Did not know about glmmTMB, will try it out. Does it work with
crossed random effects and how does it scale with more data? I will
check the docu and try it though. Thanks for the info.
On 23.06.2016 19:14, Ben Bolker wrote:
I would also comment that glmmTMB is likely to be much faster
than the
lme4-based EM approach ...
cheers
Ben B.
On 16-06-23 12:47 PM, Mollie Brooks wrote:
Hi Philipp,
You could also try fitting the model with and without ZI using
either
glmmADMB or glmmTMB. Then compare the AICs. I believe model
selection
is useful for this, but I could be missing something since the
simulation procedure that Thierry described seems to recommended
more
often.
https://github.com/glmmTMB/glmmTMB
http://glmmadmb.r-forge.r-project.org
glmmTMB is still in the development phase, but we?ve done a lot of
testing.
cheers, Mollie
------------------------ Mollie Brooks, PhD Postdoctoral Researcher,
Population Ecology Research Group Department of Evolutionary Biology
& Environmental Studies, University of Z?rich
http://www.popecol.org/team/mollie-brooks/
On 23Jun 2016, at 8:22, Philipp Singer <killver at gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks, great information, that is really helpful.
I agree that those are different things, however when using a
random effect for overdispersion, I can simulate the same number of
zero outcomes (~95%).
On 23.06.2016 15:50, Thierry Onkelinx wrote:
Be careful when using overdispersion to model zero-inflation.
Those are two different things.
I've put some information together in
http://rpubs.com/INBOstats/zeroinflation
ir. Thierry Onkelinx Instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek /
Research Institute for Nature and Forest team Biometrie &
Kwaliteitszorg / team Biometrics & Quality Assurance
Kliniekstraat 25 1070 Anderlecht Belgium
To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may be
no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination: he
may be able to say what the experiment died of. ~ Sir Ronald
Aylmer Fisher The plural of anecdote is not data. ~ Roger
Brinner The combination of some data and an aching desire for an
answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted
from a given body of data. ~ John Tukey
2016-06-23 12:42 GMT+02:00 Philipp Singer <killver at gmail.com
<mailto:killver at gmail.com <mailto:killver at gmail.com>>>:
Thanks! Actually, accounting for overdispersion is super
important as it seems, then the zeros can be captured well.
On 23.06.2016 11:50, Thierry Onkelinx wrote:
Dear Philipp,
1. Fit a Poisson model to the data. 2. Simulate a new response
vector for the dataset according to the model. 3. Count the
number of zero's in the simulated response vector. 4. Repeat
step 2 and 3 a decent number of time and plot a histogram of
the number of zero's in the simulation. If the number of zero's
in the original dataset is larger than those in the
simulations, then the model can't capture all zero's. In such
case, first try to update the model and repeat the procedure.
If that fails, look for zero-inflated models.
Best regards,
ir. Thierry Onkelinx Instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek /
Research Institute for Nature and Forest team Biometrie &
Kwaliteitszorg / team Biometrics & Quality Assurance
Kliniekstraat 25 1070 Anderlecht Belgium
To call in the statistician after the experiment is done may
be no more than asking him to perform a post-mortem
examination: he may be able to say what the experiment died of.
~ Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher The plural of anecdote is not data.
~ Roger Brinner The combination of some data and an aching
desire for an answer does not ensure that a reasonable answer
can be extracted from a given body of data. ~ John Tukey
2016-06-23 11:27 GMT+02:00 Philipp Singer <killver at gmail.com
<mailto:killver at gmail.com <mailto:killver at gmail.com>>>:
Thanks Thierry - That totally makes sense. Is there some way of
formally checking that, except thinking about the setting and
underlying processes?
On 23.06.2016 11:04, Thierry Onkelinx wrote:
Dear Philipp,
Do you have just lots of zero's, or more zero's than the
distribution can explain? Those are two different things.
below generates data from a Poisson distribution and has
but no zero-inflation. The second example has only 1%
clearly zero-inflated.
set.seed(1) n <- 1e8 sim <- rpois(n, lambda = 0.01) mean(sim
== 0) hist(sim)
sim.infl <- rbinom(n, size = 1, prob = 0.99) * rpois(n,
mean(sim.infl == 0) hist(sim.infl)
So before looking for zero-inflated models, try to model
Best regards,
ir. Thierry Onkelinx Instituut voor natuur- en bosonderzoek /
Research Institute
and Forest team Biometrie & Kwaliteitszorg / team Biometrics
& Quality
Kliniekstraat 25 1070 Anderlecht Belgium
To call in the statistician after the experiment is done
more than asking him to perform a post-mortem examination:
able to say what the experiment died of. ~ Sir Ronald
The plural of anecdote is not data. ~ Roger Brinner The
combination of some data and an aching desire for an
not ensure that a reasonable answer can be extracted from a
of data. ~ John Tukey
2016-06-23 10:07 GMT+02:00 Philipp Singer
<killver at gmail.com <mailto:killver at gmail.com>
<mailto:killver at gmail.com <mailto:killver at gmail.com>>
<mailto:killver at gmail.com <mailto:killver at gmail.com>
<mailto:killver at gmail.com <mailto:killver at gmail.com>>>>:
Dear group - I am currently fitting a Poisson glmer
an excess of outcomes that are zero (>95%). I am now
how to proceed and came up with three options:
1.) Just fit a regular glmer to the complete data. I am
sure how interpret the coefficients then, are they more
towards distinguishing zero and non-zero, or also
differences in those outcomes that are non-zero?
2.) Leave all zeros out of the data and fit a glmer to
outcomes that are non-zero. Then, I would only learn about
differences in the non-zero outcomes though.
3.) Use a zero-inflated Poisson model. My data is quite
large-scale, so I am currently playing around with the EM
implementation of Bolker et al. that alternates between
glmer with data that are weighted according to their zero
probability, and fitting a logistic regression for the
that a data point is zero. The method is elaborated for
I am not fully sure how to interpret the results for the
zero-inflated version though. Would I need to interpret the
coefficients for the result of the glmer similar to as
for my idea of 2)? And then on top of that interpret the
coefficients for the logistic regression regarding whether
something is in the perfect or imperfect state? I am
quite sure what the common approach for the zformula is
OWL elaborations only use zformula=z~1, so no random
would use the same formula as for the glmer.
I am appreciating some help and pointers.
Thanks! Philipp